2009
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
Nevada
R ALL GRA
VE D
d-
O
E
National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATeS
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their extensive experience has helped
to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Every state formally received a draft of the Yearbook in July 2009 for
comment and correction; states also received a final draft of their reports a month prior to release. All states graciously
reviewed and responded to our drafts. While states do not always agree with our recommendations, the willingness of
most states to acknowledge the imperfections of their teacher policies is an important first step toward reform.
We also thank the many state pension boards that reviewed our drafts and responded to our inquiries.
FuNderS
The primary funders for the 2009 Yearbook were:
n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n George Gund Foundation
n Daniels Fund n Houston Endowment
n Fisher Family Foundation n The Joyce Foundation
n Gleason Family Foundation
The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the federal government.
STAFF
Sandi Jacobs, Project Director
Sarah Brody, Project Assistant
Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher
Trisha M. Madden, Stephanie T. Maltz and Tracey L. Myers-Preston, Researchers
Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2009 Yearbook. Thanks also to Colleen
Hale at Summerhouse Studios for the original Yearbook design and to Jeff Hale for technical support.
executive Summary
Welcome to the Nevada edition of the National Council on Teacher Quality’s 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook.
This analysis is our third annual look at state policies impacting the teaching profession. We hope that this report
will help focus attention on areas where state policymakers can make changes that will have a positive impact on
teacher quality and student achievement.
The 2009 Yearbook presents a comprehensive analysis of state teacher policies. Our evaluation is organized in five
areas encompassing 33 goals. Broadly, these goals examine the impact of state policy on 1) delivering well-prepared
teachers, 2) expanding the teaching pool, 3) identifying effective teachers, 4) retaining those deemed effective and
5) exiting those deemed ineffective.
Nevada at a Glance
Overall 2009 Yearbook Grade: d-
area gradeS: goal BreakdoWn:
area 1 Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D- Fully meets 4
area 2 Expanding the Teaching Pool D- nearly meets 0
area 3 Identifying Effective Teachers D- Partially meets 5
area 4 Retaining Effective Teachers D only meets a small part 5
area 5 Exiting Ineffective Teachers D+ Does not meet 19
Major Policy StrengthS:
• Requires annual evaluations for all teachers
• Supports differential pay in high-needs schools and shortage subjects
• Requires that all new teachers pass a pedagogy test
Major Policy WeakneSSeS:
• Awards tenure virtually automatically
• Fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations
• Lacks an efficient termination process for ineffective teachers
• Offers a disingenuous alternate route
• Allows middle school teachers to teach on a K-8 generalist license
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 1
Nevada
How is Nevada Faring?
area 1: d-
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Nevada’s policies supporting the delivery of well-prepared teachers are sorely lacking. The state does not require
teacher candidates to pass a basic skills test prior to program admission. In addition, Nevada does not ensure that
elementary teachers are provided with a broad liberal arts education. Elementary teacher preparation programs
are not required to address the science of reading or provide mathematics content specifically geared to the needs
of elementary teachers. The state does not require elementary candidates to pass a test of the science of reading
or a rigorous mathematics assessment. Nevada also does not sufficiently prepare middle school teachers to teach
appropriate grade-level content, and it allows middle school teachers to teach on a generalist K-8 license. The
state also does not ensure that special education teachers are adequately prepared to teach content-area subject
matter. Commendably, Nevada requires all new teachers to pass a pedagogy test to attain licensure, and the state’s
efforts to hold preparation programs accountable for the quality of teachers they produce are on the right track.
Unfortunately, the state has not retained full authority over its program approval, and it lacks any policy that ensures
efficient preparation of teacher candidates in terms of the professional coursework that may be required.
area 2: d-
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Nevada does not currently provide a genuine alternate route into the teaching profession. The state’s alternate
routes are not sufficiently selective and coursework does not adequately address the needs of new teachers. In
addition, Nevada limits the usage and providers of its alternate routes and does not collect objective data to hold
alternate route programs accountable for the performance of the teachers they prepare. Finally, Nevada’s policies
targeting licensure reciprocity create unnecessary obstacles for out-of-state teachers.
area 3: d-
Identifying Effective Teachers
Nevada’s efforts to identify effective teachers are in need of improvement. The state only has two of the three
necessary elements for the development of a student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system. Although it
requires classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations, it fails to require evidence of student learning through
objective measures such as standardized test scores and prohibits the use of student achievement data from the
state data system. Commendably, Nevada requires multiple evaluations for its new teachers, including one early in
the year, and the state requires annual evaluations for its nonprobationary teachers. The probationary period for new
teachers in Nevada is only two years, and the state does not require any meaningful process to evaluate cumulative
effectiveness in the classroom before teachers are awarded tenure. Further, the state’s licensure requirements are not
based on evidence of teacher effectiveness, and it reports little school-level data that can help support the equitable
distribution of teacher talent.
2 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: d
Retaining Effective Teachers
Nevada does not require mentoring or any other induction support for new teachers. Nevada gives districts authority
for how teachers are paid, and the state supports differential pay for teachers working in high-needs schools and
shortage subject areas; however, the state’s other policies regarding teacher compensation need improvement.
Nevada does not support retention bonuses, compensation for relevant prior work experience or performance pay. In
addition, the state’s pension system is not currently financially sustainable. Nevada only provides a defined benefit
pension plan for teachers, and its pension policies are not portable, flexible or fair to all workers. Further, retirement
benefits are determined by a formula that is not neutral, meaning that pension wealth does not accumulate uniformly
for each year a teacher works.
area 5: d+
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Beginning in 2010, Nevada will commendably require that all teachers of core subject areas pass subject-matter
tests before entering the classroom. However, the state fails to articulate a policy regarding teachers who receive
unsatisfactory evaluations. Regrettably, Nevada allows tenured teachers who are terminated for poor performance to
appeal multiple times, and it fails to distinguish due process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective performance
from those facing license revocation for dereliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 3
Nevada
about the 2009 Yearbook
the 2009 edition of the State Teacher Policy Yearbook is the national council on teacher quality’s
third annual review of state laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. this
year’s report is a comprehensive analysis of the full range of each state’s teacher policies, measured
against a realistic blueprint for reform.
The release of the 2009 Yearbook comes at a particularly opportune time. Race to the Top, the $4.5 billion federal discretionary
grant competition, has put unprecedented focus on education reform in general, and teacher quality in particular. In many respects,
the Yearbook provides a road map to the Race to the Top, addressing key policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation,
alternative certification and compensation. Our analysis makes clear that states have a great deal of work to do in order to ensure
that every child has an effective teacher.
The 2009 Yearbook revisits most of the goals from our first two editions, with a few new goals added for good measure. With
ongoing feedback from state officials, practitioners, policy groups and other education organizations, as well as NCTQ’s own
nationally respected advisory group, we have continued to refine and develop our policy goals. Consequently, many of the goals
and related indicators have changed from previous reviews. We therefore have not published comparisons with prior ratings, but
look forward to tracking state progress in future editions.
Our goals meet NCTQ’s five criteria for an effective reform framework:
1. They are supported by a strong rationale, grounded in the best research available.
(A full list of the citations supporting each goal can be found at www.nctq.org/stpy.)
2. They offer practical, rather than pie-in-the-sky, solutions for improving teacher quality.
3. They take on the teaching profession’s most pressing needs, including making the profession more responsive to
the current labor market.
4. They are for the most part relatively cost neutral.
5. They respect the legitimate constraints that some states face so that the goals can work in all 50 states.
As is now our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized the Yearbook so that each state has its own
report, with its own analyses and data. Users can download any of our 51 state reports (including the District of Columbia) from
our website at www.nctq.org/stpy. Since some national perspective is always helpful, each state report contains charts and graphs
showing how the state performed compared to all other states. We also point to states that offer a “Best Practice” for other states
to emulate.
In addition to giving an overall grade, we also give “sub-grades” in each of the five areas organizing the goals. These grades break
down even further, with an eye toward giving a full perspective on the states’ progress. We rate state progress on the individual
goals using a familiar and useful graphic : .
We hope the Yearbook continues to serve as an important resource for state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and the many
advocates who press hard for reform. In turn, we maintain our commitment to listen and learn.
Sincerely,
Kate Walsh, President
Goals
area 1: delivering Well PrePared teacherS page
1-A: Admission into Preparation Programs 7
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to administer a basic skills test as a criterion for
admission.
1-B: Elementary Teacher Preparation 10
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts
education.
1-C: Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction 16
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of reading instruction.
1-D: Teacher Preparation in Mathematics 20
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content.
1-E: Middle School Teacher Preparation 23
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to teach appropriate grade-level content.
1-F: Special Education Teacher Preparation 27
The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach content-area subject matter.
1-G: Assessing Professional Knowledge 31
The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its professional standards.
1-H: Teacher Preparation Program Accountability 34
The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold programs accountable for the quality of the
teachers they produce.
1-I: State Authority for Program Approval 37
The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher preparation programs.
1-J: Balancing Professional Coursework 40
The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient and balanced program of study.
area 2: exPanding the Pool of teacherS
2-A: Alternate Route Eligibility 45
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission requirements of traditional preparation
programs while also being flexible to the needs of nontraditional candidates.
2-B: Alternate Route Preparation 49
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation that is relevant to the
immediate needs of new teachers.
2-C: Alternate Route Usage and Providers 53
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles that inappropriately limit its usage
and providers.
2-D: Alternate Route Program Accountability 59
The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs holds them accountable for the perfor-
mance of their teachers.
2-E: Licensure Reciprocity 62
The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with appropriate safeguards.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 5
Nevada
Goals
area 3: identifying effective teacherS page
3-A: State Data Systems 67
The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence needed to assess teacher effectiveness.
3-B: Evaluation of Effectiveness 70
The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation.
3-C: Frequency of Evaluations 74
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple evaluations of all new teachers.
3-D: Tenure 78
The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.
3-E: Licensure Advancement 81
The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on evidence of effectiveness.
3-F: Equitable Distribution 85
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among schools in its districts by means of
good reporting.
area 4: retaining effective teacherS
4-A: Induction 89
The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.
4-B: Pay Scales 92
The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating potential barriers such as state salary
schedules and other regulations that control how districts pay teachers.
4-C: Retention Pay 96
The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.
4-D: Compensation for Prior Work Experience 98
The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior subject-area work experience.
4-E: Differential Pay 101
The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and high-needs areas.
4-F: Performance Pay 104
The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.
4-G: Pension Sustainability 107
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding teachers’ pension systems.
4-H: Pension Flexibility 114
The state should ensure that pension systems are portable, flexible and fair to all teachers.
4-I: Pension Neutrality 122
The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing pension wealth with each additional
year of work.
area 5: exiting ineffective teacherS
5-A: Licensure Loopholes 125
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure requirements to continue teaching.
5-B: Unsatisfactory Evaluations 128
The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory evaluations, including specifying that
teachers with multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
5-C: Dismissal for Poor Performance 131
The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is expedient and fair to all parties.
aPPendix 135
6 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal a – admission into Preparation Programs
The state should require undergraduate teacher preparation programs to
administer a basic skills test as a criterion for admission.
goal components
Figure 1
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Admission Requirements
1. The state should require teacher candidates 0 best Practice States
to pass a basic skills test that assesses read-
ing, writing and mathematics as a criterion for 7 States Meet Goal
Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi,
admission to teacher preparation programs. All
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
preparation programs in a state should use a
West Virginia
common test to facilitate program comparison.
The state, not teacher preparation programs, 7 States nearly Meet Goal
should set the score needed to pass this test. Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas,
Programs should have the option of exempting Washington, Wisconsin
from this test candidates who submit compa-
rable SAT/ACT scores at a level set by the state. 1 State Partly Meets Goal
Iowa
rationale 5 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
California, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Virginia
n The most appropriate time for assessing basic
skills is at program entry. 31 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado
n Screening candidates at program entry protects Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
the public’s investment. Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine,
SuPPorting reSearch Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Research citations to support this goal are Minnesota, Montana, nevada,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 7
Nevada
area 1: Goal a Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not require aspiring teachers to pass a Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should con-
basic skills test as a criterion for admission to teacher sider requiring that its approved teacher preparation
education programs, instead delaying the require- programs only accept applicants who have first passed
ment until teacher candidates are ready to apply for a basic skills test or demonstrated equivalent perfor-
licensure. mance on a college entrance exam. Furthermore, the
test, the minimum passing score and the equivalent
SuPPorting reSearch college entrance exam score should be determined by
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.036 the state.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
8 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 3
d
tion
uire
When do states test
ram mple
t req
ram n to
teacher candidates’
prog r co
st no
prog issio
examples of Best Practice
rep afte
basic skills?
lls te
prepore adm
of pring or
c ski
A number of states--connecticut, louisiana,
bef
basi
Du
Mississippi, north carolina, South carolina, tennes-
alabama
see and West virginia--require candidates to pass a alaska
basic skills test as a condition of admission to a teacher arizona
preparation program. These states set a minimum pass- arkansas
ing score for the test and also eliminate unnecessary california1
testing by allowing candidates to opt out of the basic colorado
skills test by demonstrating a sufficiently high score on connecticut
the SAT or ACT. Delaware
District of columbia
Florida2
Georgia
Figure 2 hawaii
When do states test teacher candidates’ idaho
basic skills? illinois
indiana
iowa
basic skills test
kansas
not required before admission
to prep program kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
5 Massachusetts
Michigan
15 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
31 Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
Nevada north carolina
During or after
north Dakota
completion of prep
ohio
program
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia3
Washington
Figure 3
1 California requires teacher candidates to take, but not pass, a basic
West Virginia
skills test prior to admission. Wisconsin
2 Programs in Florida may accept up to 10 percent of an entering class Wyoming
who have not passed a basic skills test.
3 Programs in Virginia may accept candidates who have not met the 15 31 5
required passing score.
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal b – elementary teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation programs provide
elementary teachers with a broad liberal arts education.
goal components
Figure 4
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in the Preparation of states’ rating for the goal.)
Elementary Teachers
1. The state should require that its approved
0 best Practice States teacher preparation programs deliver a compre-
hensive program of study in broad liberal arts
0 States Meet Goal
coursework. An adequate curriculum is likely
7 States nearly Meet Goal to require approximately 36 credit hours to
California, Massachusetts, Michigan, ensure appropriate depth in the core subject
New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas, areas of English, science, social studies and fine
Washington arts. (Mathematics preparation for elementary
teachers is discussed in Goal 1-D.) An appropri-
12 States Partly Meet Goal ate elementary teacher preparation program
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, should be something like:
Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of American literature;
17 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana,
of the technical aspects of good writing and
Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, grammar;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin a survey of children’s literature;
n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of
15 States Do not Meet Goal general science, covering basic topics in earth
Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, science, biology, physics, and chemistry;
Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify)
Montana, nevada, Ohio, Rhode Island, of a survey of U.S. history and/or U.S.
South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming government;
n■ six credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of world history, including ancient
history;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify)
of world cultures and religion, including
geography;
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of music appreciation; and
n■ three credit hours (or standards to justify) of
a survey of art history.
10 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
goal components cont. rationale
2. The state should require elementary teacher See appendix for detailed rationale.
candidates to complete a content specializa-
tion in an academic subject area. In addition to n Elementary teachers need liberal arts
enhancing content knowledge, this requirement coursework that is relevant to the PK through
also ensures that prospective teachers have 6 classroom.
taken higher level academic coursework. n An academic concentration enhances content
knowledge and ensures that prospective
3. Arts and sciences faculty, rather than education elementary teachers take higher level
faculty, should teach liberal arts coursework to academic coursework.
teacher candidates.
n Standards-based programs can work when
verified by testing.
4. The state should allow elementary teacher
candidates to test out of specific coursework n Mere alignment with student learning
requirements, provided the test that is limited standards is not sufficient.
to a single particular subject area. n Subject-area coursework should be taught by
arts and sciences faculty.
n Teacher candidates need to be able to “test
out” of coursework requirements.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 11
Nevada
area 1: Goal b Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not articulate the subject-matter knowl- Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should ensure
edge that elementary teacher candidates must have that prospective elementary teachers have appropri-
across all areas. ate and sufficient subject-matter preparation in one of
The state does not specify any coursework require- two ways. First, Nevada could establish comprehensive
ments for general education or elementary teacher coursework requirements that are specifically geared to
candidates, except for ones related to content method- the areas of knowledge needed by elementary teachers.
ology. Nevada requires eight semester hours in student Allowing teacher candidates to pick and choose course-
teaching, nine semester hours in methods of teaching work under ambiguous requirements (e.g., “English” or
elementary subjects, nine semester hours in the teaching “history”) may lead to far too many gaps in essential
of literacy or language arts, and six semester hours of knowledge. Arts and sciences faculty should teach this
professional education coursework in areas such as class- coursework, and teacher candidates should be allowed to
room management and child development. test out of core coursework requirements so that quali-
Nevada also has not articulated standards for programs fied candidates may pursue other course selections and
to apply in preparing elementary candidates. are not forced to retake survey courses they may have
Finally, all new elementary teachers in Nevada must already had in high school. Alternatively, Nevada could
pass a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II. While articulate a specific set of standards and then administer
this test puts the state in technical compliance with a licensing test based on it.
NCLB’s requirements that all elementary teachers take
a test of broad subject matter, it does not report teacher
performance in each subject area, meaning that it is pos- nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
sible to pass the test and still fail some subject areas, Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
especially given low state cut score.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.095
www.ets.org/praxis
12 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
examples of Best Practice
Although no state meets this goal, two have articu-
lated noteworthy policies. Massachusetts’s testing
requirements, which are based on the state’s curricu-
lum, ensure that elementary teachers are provided with
a broad liberal arts education. texas articulates detailed
standards in which preparation programs must frame
instruction for elementary teachers. Both states also
require that arts and sciences faculty teach liberal arts
courses to teacher candidates. Neither state requires
separate passing scores for each subject area on general
curriculum tests, but both utilize licensing assessments
based on their own standards.
Figure 5
What subjects does Nevada expect elementary teachers to know? State requirements mention subject
State requirements cover subject in depth
English
american World/british Writing/Grammar children’s X State does not require subject
literature literature composition literature
X X X X
sciEncE
chemistry Physics General Physical earth biology/life
Science Science Science
X X X X X
social studiEs
american american american World history World history World history Geography
history i history ii Government (ancient) (Modern) (non Western)
X X X X X X X
FinE arts
art history Music
X X
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 13
Nevada
Figure 6
State requirements mention subject
Do states expect State requirements cover subject in depth
elementary teachers
to know core
content?
English
american literature 2
World/british literature 2
Writing/Grammar/
composition 21
children’s literature 7
sciEncE
chemistry 2
Physics 0
General Physical
Science 36
earth Science 34
biology/life Science
36
social studiEs
american history i 17
american history ii 15
american Government 21
World history (ancient) 13
World history (Modern) 10
World history
(non Western) 3
Geography 36
FinE arts
art history 1
Music 32
14 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 7
Do states expect elementary teachers to
complete an academic concentration?
Nevada
37
12
2
academic Minor or not
major concentration required
required1 required2
1 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa3, Massachusetts, Michigan4,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia.
2 Mississippi, New Hampshire. Mississippi requires two content
concentrations.
3 Although Iowa requires a subject-area major, it consists mostly of
education courses.
4 Michigan also allows a group major with a minor,
or three minors.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 15
Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal c – teacher Preparation in reading instruction
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers know the science of
reading instruction.
goal components
Figure 8
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to states’ rating for the goal.)
Teach Reading
1. To ensure that teacher preparation programs
3 best Practice States adequately prepare candidates in the science
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia
of reading, the state should require that these
programs train teachers in the five instructional
2 States Meet Goal
Oklahoma, Tennessee components shown by scientifically based read-
ing research to be essential to teaching children
6 States nearly Meet Goal to read.
California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oregon,
Texas 2. The most flexible and effective way of achieving
this crucial goal is by requiring that new teach-
14 States Partly Meet Goal ers pass a rigorous test of reading instruction in
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, order to attain licensure. Most current tests of
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, pedagogy and reading instruction allow teachers
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, to pass without knowing the science of reading
Washington, West Virginia
instruction. If a state elects to test knowledge of
reading instruction on a general test of pedago-
2 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, New York gy or elementary content, it should require that
the testing company report a subscore clearly
24 States Do not Meet Goal revealing the candidates’ knowledge in the sci-
Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, ence of reading. Elementary teachers who do
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, not possess the minimum knowledge needed
Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, should not be eligible for a teaching license.
nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, rationale
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Wisconsin, Wyoming
n Reading science has identified five
components of effective instruction.
n Most current reading tests do not offer
assurance that teachers know the science of
reading.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
16 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: Goal c Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not require that teacher preparation pro- Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should ensure
grams for elementary teacher candidates address the that teacher preparation programs adequately prepare
science of reading. The state has neither coursework elementary teacher candidates in the science of reading
requirements nor standards related to this critical area. by requiring that these programs train candidates in the
Nevada does require that elementary teacher candidates five instructional components of scientifically based
complete nine credit hours in the teaching of literacy or reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, flu-
language arts; however, this coursework does not explicitly ency, vocabulary and comprehension. Nevada should
require that teachers receive training in the five essential also utilize a rigorous assessment tool to ensure that
components of reading instruction. its teacher candidates are adequately prepared before
Nevada also does not require teacher candidates to pass entering the classroom. The state’s assessment should
an assessment that measures knowledge of scientifically clearly test knowledge and skills related to the science
based reading instruction prior to certification or at any of reading, similar to the assessment adopted by Mas-
point thereafter. sachusetts, and if it is combined with an assessment
that also tests general pedagogy or elementary content,
SuPPorting reSearch it should report a subscore for the science of reading
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.095 specifically. Elementary teachers who do not possess
the minimum knowledge in this area should not be eli-
gible for licensure.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 17
Nevada
Figure 9
PrEParation tEsting
Do states ensure rEquirEmEnts rEquirEmEnts
elementary teachers
cien ss
test
ing s dress
st
est
ing s ddre
ce
ce
ce
know the science of
te te
ing s ss
cien
cien
ng t
iate
readly addre
readnot ad
readtially a
reading?
equa
eadi
ropr
no r
inad
Par
app
Ful
Do
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
25 1 25 5 10 36
Figure 10
examples of Best Practice
Do states require preparation for elementary
teachers in the science of reading? connecticut, Massachusetts and virginia presently
require preparation programs for elementary teacher
Nevada candidates to address the science of reading. All three
states also require candidates to pass comprehensive
25 assessments that specifically test the five elements of
25 instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vo-
cabulary and comprehension.
1
yes Partially no
Figure 11
Do states measure new teachers’ knowledge
of the science of reading?
Nevada
36
10
5
yes inadequate no
test
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 19
Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal D – teacher Preparation in Mathematics
The state should ensure that new elementary teachers have sufficient knowledge
of mathematics content.
goal components
Figure 12
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Preparing Teachers to states’ rating for the goal.)
Teach Math
1. The state should require teacher preparation
1 best Practice State programs to deliver mathematics content of
Massachusetts
appropriate breadth and depth to elementary
teacher candidates. This content should be spe-
0 States Meet Goal
cific to the needs of the elementary teacher (i.e.,
0 States nearly Meet Goal foundations, algebra and geometry, with some
statistics).
3 States Partly Meet Goal
California, Florida, New Mexico 2. The state should require elementary teacher
candidates to pass a rigorous test of mathemat-
33 States Meet a Small Part of Goal ics content in order to attain licensure. Such test
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
can also be used to test out of content require-
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
ments. Elementary teachers who do not possess
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan,
the minimum knowledge needed should not be
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
eligible for a teaching license.
New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, rationale
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wyoming See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Required math coursework should be tailored
14 States Do not Meet Goal
in both design and delivery to the unique needs
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
of the elementary teacher.
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska,
nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, n Most state tests offer no assurance that teach-
West Virginia, Wisconsin ers are prepared to teach mathematics.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
20 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: Goal D Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada has not articulated requirements to ensure that Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should require
elementary teacher candidates have sufficient mathemat- teacher preparation programs to provide mathematics
ics content knowledge. content that is specifically geared to the needs of
The state neither specifies any coursework requirements elementary teachers. This includes coursework in founda-
regarding mathematics content nor outlines teaching tions, algebra and geometry, with some statistics. Nevada
standards that its approved teacher preparation programs should also test requisite mathematics content with a
must use to frame instruction in elementary mathematics rigorous assessment tool, such as the test Massachu-
content. setts recently adopted. Such test could also be used to
allow candidates to test out of coursework requirements.
Nevada does require that all new elementary teachers pass
Teacher candidates who lack minimum mathematics
a general subject-matter test, the Praxis II. This commercial
knowledge should not be eligible for licensure.
test lacks a specific mathematics subscore, so one can fail
the mathematics portion and still pass the test. Further,
while this test does cover important elementary school-
level content, it barely evaluates candidates’ knowledge nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
beyond an elementary school level, does not challenge Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
their understanding of underlying concepts and does not
require candidates to apply knowledge in nonroutine, mul-
tistep procedures.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.095
www.ets.org/praxis
“No Common Denominator: The Preparation of
Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America’s
Education Schools,” NCTQ, June 2008
http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/
nctq_ttmath_fullreport.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 21
Nevada
Figure 13
examples of Best Practice
Do states require appropriate mathematics
preparation for elementary teachers? Massachusetts ensures that its elementary teachers
have sufficient knowledge of mathematics content. As
part of its general curriculum test, the state utilizes a
separately scored mathematics subtest that covers
topics specifically geared to the needs of elementary
36 teachers.
Nevada
14
1
yes1 Partially no2
1 Massachusetts
2 Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
Figure 14
Do states measure new elementary teachers’
knowledge of math?
49
Nevada
1 1
yes1 inadequate no2
test
1 Massachusetts
2 Montana
22 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal e – Middle School teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that middle school teachers are sufficiently prepared to
teach appropriate grade-level content.
goal components
Figure 15
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Preparing Middle
School Teachers
1. The state should encourage middle school can-
didates who intend to teach multiple subjects 1 best Practice State
Georgia
to earn two minors in two core academic areas
rather than a single major. Middle school can-
5 States Meet Goal
didates intending to teach a single subject area Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana,
should earn a major in that area. Mississippi, New Jersey
2. The state should not permit middle school 12 States nearly Meet Goal
teachers to teach on a generalist license, which Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia,
does not differentiate between the preparation Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New York,
of middle school teachers and that of elemen- Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
tary teachers. Tennessee, Virginia
3. The state should require that new middle school 14 States Partly Meet Goal
Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
teachers pass a test in every core academic area
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska,
they intend to teach.
North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
rationale West Virginia, Wyoming
See appendix for detailed rationale. 9 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n States must differentiate middle school Arizona, Michigan, Montana, nevada,
teacher preparation from that of elementary New Hampshire, New Mexico,
teachers. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah
n Approved programs should prepare middle 10 States Do not Meet Goal
school teacher candidates to be qualified to Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho,
teach two subject areas. Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon,
Washington, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 23
Nevada
area 1: Goal e Nevada analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada offers a middle school license for middle school Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. The state
teachers; candidates must earn 24 semester hours in a should not allow middle school teachers to teach on a
major field of endorsement or area of concentration. generalist license that does not differentiate between
Teachers with secondary certificates are allowed to teach the preparation of middle school teachers and that of
single subjects in middle school. Those candidates must elementary teachers. These teachers are less likely to
complete either a major (36 credit hours) or a minor (24 be adequately prepared in core academic areas because
credit hours) in their intended teaching field. Regrettably, they are not required to complete secondary preparation
Nevada also allows middle school teachers to teach on a requirements or pass a subject-matter test in each sub-
generalist K-8 license. ject they teach.
All new middle school teachers in Nevada are also The state should also encourage middle school teachers
required to pass a Praxis II subject-matter test to attain who plan to teach multiple subjects to earn two minors
licensure. However, only secondary and middle school in two core academic areas, rather than a single major.
candidates are required to pass a single-subject Praxis However, the state should retain its requirement for a
II content test to attain licensure. Those seeking the subject-area major for middle school candidates who
elementary license are only required to pass the general intend to teach a single subject.
content test for elementary education, in which sub- Finally, Nevada should require subject-matter testing for
scores are not provided; therefore, there is no assurance all middle school teacher candidates in every core aca-
that these middle school teachers will have sufficient demic area they intend to teach, as a condition of initial
knowledge in each subject they teach. licensure.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.090, -111, -120
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
www.ets.org/praxis
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
24 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 16
Do states allow middle
school teachers to teach
examples of Best Practice
mst tain
s
on a K-8 generalist
ance
circu er cer
license? georgia ensures that all middle school teachers are suf-
Und
yes
no
ficiently prepared to teach middle school-level content.
alabama
It requires teachers to earn two minors and pass the
alaska
arizona
state’s own single-subject content test. Other notables
arkansas include louisiana, Mississippi and new jersey. These
california1 states require either two minors or a major for those
colorado teaching one content area, as well as a passing score on
connecticut a single-subject content test.
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois2
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota1
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska1
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma3
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island1
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah3
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 16
1 May teach grades 7 and 8 on generalist license if in self-contained
Wyoming classroom
16 5 30 2 Generalist license is K-9
3 With the exception of mathematics
Figure 17
t
nten
What academic
nor f co
ors
preparation do states
ts
r mi nt o
men
ajor
min
or o me
require for a middle school
e
am
uire
mor
two
maj require
ors
e req
than
endorsement or license?
min
r
r
or o
or o
loos
two
less
no
Maj
Maj
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky1
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts1
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska1
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia2
Figure 17 Wisconsin
1 State does not explicitly require two Wyoming
minors, but has equivalent requirements.
2 West Virginia elementary candidates need 14 2 9 7 5 14
only one minor to teach middle grades.
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal F – Special education teacher Preparation
The state should ensure that special education teachers are prepared to teach
content-area subject matter.
goal components
Figure 18
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Preparing
Special Education Teachers
1. The state should require that teacher prepara-
tion programs provide a broad liberal arts pro- 0 best Practice States
gram of study to elementary special education
0 States Meet Goal
candidates. All elementary special education
candidates should have preparation in the con- 0 States nearly Meet Goal
tent areas of math, science, English, social studies
and fine arts and should be required to pass a 12 States Partly Meet Goal
subject-matter test for licensure. Arkansas, California, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
2. The state should require that teacher preparation New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
programs graduate secondary special education Oregon
teacher candidates who are “highly qualified” in
at least two subjects. The most efficient route 10 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
for these candidates to become adequately pre- Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey,
pared to teach multiple subjects may be to earn Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia,
the equivalent of two subject-area minors and West Virginia, Wisconsin
pass tests in those areas.
29 States Do not Meet Goal
3. The state should customize a “HOUSSE” route Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
for new secondary special education teachers to Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
help them achieve highly qualified status in all Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
the subjects they teach.
Montana, nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
rationale Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n All teachers, including special education teach-
ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
coursework.
n HQT requirements place unique challenges on
secondary special education teachers.
n Secondary special education teachers need to
graduate highly qualified in two subject areas.
n A customized HOUSSE route is needed to meet
the needs of new special education teachers to
earn highly qualified status.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 27
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Nevada
area 1: Goal F Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada’s requirements do not ensure that special Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should require
education teachers are prepared to teach content- that all teacher candidates for elementary special educa-
area subject matter. tion be well trained in relevant academic subject matter to
Teacher preparation programs in Nevada are not ensure that special education students, who deserve the
required to provide a broad liberal arts program to opportunity to learn grade-level content, are not short-
teacher candidates for elementary special education. changed. These candidates should also be required to pass
The state does not require these candidates to receive the same subject-area tests as other elementary teachers.
any preparation in elementary subject areas or pass Nevada should also ensure that teacher candidates for
a subject-matter test. secondary special education are adequately prepared to
Nevada also does not ensure that teacher candidates teach multiple subjects. The most efficient way to
for secondary special education are “highly qualified” accomplish this is to require these candidates to earn the
in at least two subject areas. In fact, the state does equivalent of two subject-area minors and pass tests in
not even require that these candidates complete a those areas.
subject-matter major or pass a subject-matter test. Finally, the state should create a HOUSSE route spe-
It additionally does not require dual certification (in cifically for new secondary special education teachers.
which special education teachers must attain licen- Although ideally these teachers will have graduated with
sure in both special education and a specific subject highly qualified status in two core areas, the state should
area), so there is no assurance that secondary special provide a practical and meaningful way for these teachers
education teachers have sufficient preparation in any to achieve highly qualified status in all remaining core sub-
of the content they may need to teach.
jects once they are in the classroom. Nevada should also
Finally, Nevada does not have a unique HOUSSE route phase out its use of HOUSSE for veteran teachers.
for new secondary special education teachers. The
state has not yet phased out the use of its HOUSSE
route for veteran teachers and allows its new sec-
ondary special education teachers to use this route nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
to gain highly qualified status in multiple subjects. Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.343
www.ets.org
http://www.doe.nv.gov/Accountability_NCLB.htm
28 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 19
Do states require subject-
ork
ed
rk
quir
ents rsew
ents sewo
est
matter preparation
n re
ter t
irem e cou
examples of Best Practice
irem cour
for elementary special
ratio
mat
requ equat
requ quate
repa
education teachers?
ect-
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s
inad
no p
ade
Subj
policy in this area. Preparation of special education
alabama
teachers is a topic in critical need of states’ attention.
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
6 15 14 26
ed
Figure 20
d
eas
eas lifie
area ualifi
ic ar
ic ar ly qua
y ac ighly
Do states require subject-
mic hly q
adem
in an be h
adem high
matter preparation
cade hig
ified ed to
ne a o be
o ac o be
for secondary special
qualt requir
in oquired t
in twuired t
education teachers?
req
no
re
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
0 16 35
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal G – assessing Professional knowledge
The state should use a licensing test to verify that all new teachers meet its
professional standards.
goal components
Figure 21
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Assessing Professional
Knowledge
1. The state should assess new teachers’ knowl-
edge of teaching and learning by means of a 0 best Practice States
pedagogy test aligned to the state’s profession-
23 States Meet Goal
al standards.
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,
rationale Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
nevada, New Mexico, New York,
See appendix for detailed rationale.
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
n A good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ pro- South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
fessional standards. Texas, West Virginia
SuPPorting reSearch
2 States nearly Meet Goal
Research citations to support this goal are Maryland, Rhode Island
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
4 States Partly Meet Goal
District of Columbia, Idaho,
North Carolina, Utah
5 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, Wyoming
17 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware,
Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 31
Nevada
area 1: Goal G Nevada analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada requires all new teachers to pass a popular Nevada meets this goal. The state should verify that
pedagogy test from the Praxis series in order to attain the commercially available tests of pedagogy actually
licensure. align with state standards, or it may want to consider
developing its own test to ensure that new teachers
SuPPorting reSearch enter classrooms with the requisite knowledge and
www.ets.org/praxis skills.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
32 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 22
hers
w te test
rs
rs
w te test
new st
w
teac
ache
ache
me gy te
e ne
Do states measure new
f som y
ll ne gy
ll ne gy
hers ed o agog
of a dago
of a dago
of so dago
teachers’ knowledge of
teac requir ped
test
ired al pe
ired n pe
examples of Best Practice
ired n pe
teaching and learning?
cial
ogy
requte’s ow
requ merci
requ e’s ow
mer
edag
com
Twenty-three states meet this goal, and
com
Stat
no p
test
Sta
although NCTQ has not singled out one
alabama
state’s policies for “best practice” honors, alaska
it additionally commends the eight states arizona
(arizona, california, florida, illinois, new arkansas
Mexico, new york, oklahoma, texas) that california
utilize their own assessments to measure colorado
pedagogical knowledge and skills. connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah1
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Not required until teacher advances from Level One to 8 0 18 8 17
Level Two license.
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal h – teacher Preparation Program accountability
The state’s approval process for teacher preparation programs should hold
programs accountable for the quality of the teachers they produce.
goal components
Figure 23
(The factors considered in determining the states’
How States are Faring in Holding Preparation rating for the goal.)
Programs Accountable
1. The state should collect meaningful data about
0 best Practice States candidate pass rates on state licensing tests. This
means collecting data beyond the pass rate of pro-
0 States Meet Goal
gram completers. The state should require programs
6 States nearly Meet Goal to report the percentage of teacher candidates who
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, entered student teaching and who were able to
Tennessee, Texas pass state licensing tests.
7 States Partly Meet Goal 2. In addition to better pass rate information, the
Kentucky, Missouri, nevada, New Jersey, state should create a more comprehensive index of
North Carolina, Rhode Island, program performance by collecting some or all of
South Carolina the following data:
n■ Average raw scores of graduates on licensing
14 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
tests, including basic skills, subject matter and
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
professional knowledge tests;
Mississippi, Montana, New York, Ohio,
n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia teacher supervisors of programs’ student teach-
ers, using a standardized form to permit program
24 States Do not Meet Goal comparison;
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or second
Connecticut, Delaware, year of teaching;
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, students averaged over the first three years of
Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, teaching; and
New Mexico, North Dakota, n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, teaching profession.
Wisconsin, Wyoming
3. The state should also establish the minimum standard
of performance for each of these categories of data.
rationale Programs must be held accountable for meeting these
standards, and the state, after due process, should shut
See appendix for detailed rationale.
down programs that do not do so.
n States need to hold programs accountable for
the quality of their graduates. 4. The state should produce and publish on its website
SuPPorting reSearch an annual report card that shows all the data that
the state collects on individual teacher preparation
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. programs.
34 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: Goal h Nevada analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada relies on some objective, meaningful data to mea- Nevada meets this goal in part. The state should fur-
sure the performance of teacher preparation programs. ther expand its use of meaningful, objective data,
The state has set minimum standards for program perfor- including ensuring that programs are reporting pass
mance; failure to meet those standards precipitates action rates for individuals entering student teaching, not pro-
by the Board of Education that may result in a program gram completers, for the former is now the requirement
losing state approval. The Board reviews any program that under the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education
reports fewer than 95 percent of its teacher candidates Act. It is also a method that will not mask the number of
passing their licensure tests, or if school districts report that individuals the program was unable to properly prepare.
more than 5 percent of program graduates newly hired by Additionally, Nevada should consider collecting specific
objective data to create a more comprehensive index
districts are dismissed or not rehired. This 95 percent stan-
of program performance. NCTQ recommends satisfac-
dard is among the highest in the nation, with most states
tion ratings (by school principals and teacher supervi-
setting the pass-rate standard at 80 percent.
sors) of programs’ student teachers, using a standard-
Nevada also requires each teacher preparation program to ized form to permit program comparison; evaluation
submit an annual report, although it is not clear how the results from first and/or second year of teaching; and
information gained from these reports contributes to the academic achievement gains of students taught by the
program approval process. The report must include: programs’ graduates, averaged over the first three years
• The annual accountability report submitted by the of teaching.
institution to the federal government; Finally, Nevada should post an annual report card on its
• Information regarding the types of teaching positions website that details the data it collects and the criteria
program graduates have attained; used for program approval. This report card should also
identify the programs that fail to meet these criteria
• A satisfaction survey that asks program graduates and
and cite the reasons why they failed.
principals to give their view on the quality of a pro-
gram’s preparation; and
• A plan for improvement based upon these findings.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Regrettably, Nevada’s website does not include a report Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
card that allows the public to review and compare pro-
gram performance.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code 391.558, -.560
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 35
Nevada
Figure 24
y
ance
ebsi ublicl
Do states hold teacher
cific ctive
data
orm
s for imum
te
on w ata p
-spe bje
preparation programs
perf
ram cts o
examples of Best Practice
dard min
lable es d
accountable?
progte colle
avai te mak
stante sets
Although no state meets this goal, alabama,
Sta
Sta
Sta
florida, louisiana and Michigan rely on some objective,
alabama
alaska
meaningful data to measure the performance of
arizona teacher preparation programs, and they also all apply
arkansas transparent measurable criteria for conferring program
california approval. Additionally, these four states post program
colorado report cards on their websites.
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida Figure 25
Georgia
Which states collect meaningful data?
hawaii
idaho
illinois averaGe raW ScOreS ON liceNSiNG TeSTS
indiana alabama, louisiana, Michigan, new Jersey, tennessee
iowa
SaTiSFacTiON raTiNG FrOm ScHOOlS
kansas
alabama, Florida, kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
kentucky
Nevada, texas, Virginia
louisiana
Maine evaluaTiON reSulTS FOr PrOGram GraduaTeS
Maryland Florida, rhode island, South carolina, tennessee, Vermont
Massachusetts
Michigan STudeNT learNiNG GaiNS1
Minnesota new Jersey, tennessee, texas
Mississippi
TeacHer reTeNTiON raTeS
Missouri
Missouri, new Jersey, oregon, texas
Montana
nebraska
1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
Nevada achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
new hampshire results for accountability purposes.
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
21 5 17
area 1: delivering Well Prepared Teachers
Goal i – State authority for Program approval
The state should retain full authority over its process for approving teacher
preparation programs.
goal components
Figure 26
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Maintaining Authority
for Program Approval
1. The state should not allow its teacher prepara-
tion programs to substitute national accredita- 0 best Practice States
tion for state program approval.
31 States Meet Goal
Alabama, California, Colorado,
2. The state should not require its teacher prepara-
District of Columbia, Florida, Idaho,
tion programs to attain national accreditation in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
order to receive state approval. Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
rationale New Hampshire, New Mexico,
See appendix for detailed rationale. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
n States should not cede oversight author- Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
ity over their teacher preparation programs to Washington, Wisconsin
accreditors.
SuPPorting reSearch
0 States nearly Meet Goal
Research citations to support this goal are 7 States Partly Meet Goal
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Louisiana, nevada, South Carolina
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Maryland, West Virginia, Wyoming
10 States Do not Meet Goal
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Utah
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 37
Nevada
area 1: Goal i Nevada analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not require its teacher preparation pro- Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
grams to attain national accreditation in order to receive commended for not requiring its preparation programs
state approval. However, the state has delegated its pro- to attain national accreditation, it should articulate its
gram review to NCATE. own benchmarks for program approval.
SuPPorting reSearch
NCATE State Partnership Features 2009
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
http://www.ncate.org/documents/stateRelations/
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
NCATEStatePartFeatures2008.pdf
38 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 28
but
able
ting , the
roce lays
ired
men review,
uish
atio is indisequired
ppro nizat al
val p ion p
What is the relationship
requ
te a n be
ate a orga ation
val
ss
t
e inv gram
ppro
r sta ion ca
ct
n is
accr rocess ally r
in st n but uire n
distin
between state program
olve
appr itatio
som its pro
examples of Best Practice
ed fo itat
from oval p hnic
a role tio req
n
own
oval
approval and national
tate ccred
titut ccred
ess
edita not
t tec
tains ates
proc
edit
s its
accr te does
main e deleg
for stional a
subs ional a
e no
accreditation?
e ha
Thirty-one states meet this goal, and although NCTQ
oval
Whil
appr
Sta
Stat
Stat
nat
appr
na
has not singled out one state’s policies for “best prac-
alabama
tice” honors, it commends all states that retain full
alaska
authority over their program approval process.
arizona
arkansas
california
Figure 27 colorado
What is the relationship between state program connecticut
approval and national accreditation? Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
national accreditation is
required for state approval 7 idaho
illinois
indiana
national accreditation can be
substituted for state approval 1 iowa
kansas
kentucky
While not technically
louisiana
required, the approval
process is indistinguishable
from accreditation
5 Maine
Maryland1
the state delegates its Massachusetts
program review, but
maintains some involvement
4 Nevada
Michigan
Minnesota
State does not require Mississippi
national accreditation but
organization plays a role in 3 Missouri
state approval process Montana
nebraska
Nevada
the state has its own
distinct approval process 31 new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
31 oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
Figure 28 texas
1 Maryland requires programs that enroll 2,000 or more students to
attain national accreditation. Utah
2 West Virginia public preparation programs are required to attain Vermont
national accreditation. Virginia
Washington
West Virginia2
Wisconsin
Wyoming
7 1 5 4 3 31
area 1: identifying effective Teachers
Goal J – balancing Professional coursework
The state should ensure that teacher preparation programs provide an efficient
and balanced program of study.
goal components
Figure 29
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Balancing Professional states’ rating for the goal.)
Coursework
1. The state should adopt policies designed to
0 best Practice States encourage efficient delivery of the professional
sequence, for both its own requirements and
3 States Meet Goal
those of individual programs.
California, Tennessee, Virginia
1 State nearly Meets Goal
New Jersey rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
0 States Partly Meet Goal
n Most states have programs that demand exces-
6 States Meet a Small Part of Goal sive requirements.
Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
n States need to monitor programs’ total profes-
New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont
sional coursework requirements.
41 States Do not Meet Goal SuPPorting reSearch
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
Research citations to support this goal are
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
nevada, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
40 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 1: Goal J Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS Secondary teacher candidates must complete 22 semester
Nevada specifies a minimum amount of professional hours of professional coursework, including the following:
education coursework that teacher candidates must • Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching;
complete to qualify for licensure. and
Elementary teacher candidates must complete 32 • A course in the methods and materials of teaching
semester hours of professional coursework, including a field of specialization.
the following requirements: Although Nevada sets minimum coursework require-
• Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching; ments for its teacher candidates, the state lacks any
• Nine semester hours in methods of teaching ele- policy that monitors the number of credit hours that
mentary subjects; preparation programs actually require.
• Nine semester hours in the teaching of literacy or Regrettably, some of Nevada’s teacher preparation pro-
language arts; and grams are indeed requiring excessive amounts of course-
• Six semester hours in any of the following sub- work. For example, elementary teacher candidates at the
jects: classroom management, English as a second University of Nevada - Las Vegas must complete 85 credit
language, technology, evaluation of pupils, child hours in education and related professional coursework.
development, special education, and social and In addition, special education teacher candidates at Nevada
cultural issues. State College are required to complete 60 professional
credit hours.
Middle school teacher candidates must complete 24
semester hours of professional coursework, including
SuPPorting reSearch
the following:
Nevada Administrative Code 391.095, -.111, -.120
• Eight semester hours in supervised student teaching;
http://ci.unlv.edu/files/C&I_Undergraduate_
• A course in methods of teaching middle school subjects; Catalog_2008-2010.pdf
• Three semester hours in pupils with disabilities, foun-
http://www.nsc.nevada.edu/3764.asp
dations of education or methods in teaching English
language learners;
• Six semester hours in at least two of the following:
foundations, history, theory or philosophy of mid-
dle school; curriculum, pedagogy or assessment for
middle school; adolescent growth and development;
nature and needs of the adolescent, including social,
emotional and cultural concerns; classroom manage-
ment strategies; school, family and community col-
laboration; or supervision and evaluation of programs
and pupils in a middle school; and
• Six semester hours in any of the following: English as
a second language, bilingualism or biculturalism; edu-
cational technology; tests and measurement; educa-
tional psychology; education of the exceptional child;
multicultural education; or educational research.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 41
Nevada
recoMMendation
Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should adopt a
policy that targets the tendency of preparation programs
to require increasing amounts of professional course-
work; policy that addresses only the minimum course-
work requirements does nothing to check this tendency.
The state should encourage efficient delivery of content
to teacher candidates and ensure that programs focus
on preparation that will make teachers ultimately more
effective in the classroom. Excessive coursework require-
ments do not leave room for electives or, in some cases,
adequate subject-matter preparation. They may also
discourage talented individuals from pursuing teaching
careers.
Nevada should also review these coursework require-
ments on a regular basis to weigh their benefits and
eliminate any requirements that are not relevant to
teacher effectiveness. If the state chooses not to limit
the amount of professional coursework required by its
teacher preparation programs, it should mandate that
programs with excessive requirements show measurably
superior results over programs with fewer.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
42 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 30
examples of Best Practice
Do states cap the amount of professional
coursework programs can require? Although no state was awarded “best practice” honors,
virginia and tennessee are notables because both
keep a check on the amount of professional studies that
preparation programs may require.
47
Nevada
Figure 32
Are states controlling program excesses?
Nevada
71
4
yes1 no
44
1 California, New Jersey2, Tennessee, Virginia.
2 Although not technically a cap, New Jersey requires a minimum
of 90 credit hours distributed among general education and an
academic major.
States with at least one approved
Figure 31 program that requires 60 or more credit
Coursework that supports teacher hours in professional coursework
effectiveness
1 California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
in monitoring the amount of professional Tennessee, Virginia
coursework required by teacher preparation
programs, states also need to consider whether
professional requirements support teacher
effectiveness in the classroom. States should
ensure that the following key areas are addressed:
n Methods for teaching subject matter
n child or adolescent development, with
emphasis on cognitive psychology
n classroom management
n assessment
n Special education
n contemporary issues in education, particularly
the achievement gap
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 43
Nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal a – alternate route eligibility
The state should require alternate route programs to exceed the admission
requirements of traditional preparation programs while also being flexible to the
needs of nontraditional candidates.
goal components
Figure 33
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.) How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Eligibility
1. With some accommodation for work experi-
ence, alternate route programs should screen 1 best Practice State
candidates for academic ability, such as Connecticut
requiring a minimum 2.75 overall college GPA.
0 States Meet Goal
2. All alternate route candidates, including 12 States nearly Meet Goal
elementary candidates and those having a Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana,
major in their intended subject area, should Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
be required to pass a subject-matter test. New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee
3. Alternate route candidates lacking a major in
the intended subject area should be able to 16 States Partly Meet Goal
demonstrate subject-matter knowledge by Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, District of
passing a test of sufficient rigor. Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, South
Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
rationale
Virginia
See appendix for detailed rationale.
16 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ Alternate route teachers need the advantage California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
of a strong academic background. Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
n■ Academic requirements for admission nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
to alternate routes should exceed the Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Wyoming
requirements for traditional programs.
6 States Do not Meet Goal
n■ Multiple ways for assessing subject-matter Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota,
competency are needed to accommodate Utah, Wisconsin
nontraditional candidates.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 45
Nevada
area 2: Goal a Nevada analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS original concept behind the alternate route into teach-
While the admission requirements for Nevada’s alter- ing is that the nontraditional candidate is able to con-
nate route do not exceed those for traditional prepa- centrate on acquiring professional knowledge and skills
ration programs, the state does require evidence of because he or she has demonstrated strong subject-
subject-matter knowledge. area knowledge and/or an above-average academic
Nevada classifies the Conditional License and Special background. The state can make accommodations for
Qualifications License as its alternate routes to teacher mid-career candidates.
certification. Nevada is commended for its requirement that candi-
Nevada does not require Conditional License or Special dates pass a subject-matter test to demonstrate strong
Qualifications candidates to demonstrate prior aca- content knowledge. The state should also consider
demic performance, such as a minimum GPA. Second- allowing secondary candidates required to have a major
ary candidates are required to have a major in the de- to use the subject-matter exam to test out of course-
sired area of licensure. All candidates must pass a basic work requirements. Provided the state sets an appro-
skills test and a subject-matter test. The subject-matter priately high passing score, the test allows the state to
test may not be used as a test-out option for secondary uphold its standards while also offering nontraditional
candidate coursework requirements. candidates important flexibility in how they demon-
strate their subject-matter knowledge. Rigid course-
Special Qualifications candidates must also have at least
work requirements can dissuade talented individuals
five years of experience working in a field for which the
who lack precisely the right courses from pursuing a
applicant will provide instruction in a classroom, or two
career in teaching.
years of experience teaching at an accredited degree-
granting postsecondary educational institution in a Nevada’s requirement that alternate route candidates
field for which the applicant will provide instruction pass a basic skills test is impractical and ineffectual.
in a classroom, plus at least three years of experience Basic skills tests measure minimum competency-
working in that field. -essentially those skills that a person should have
acquired in middle school. Passage of a basic skills
SuPPorting reSearch test provides no assurance that the candidate has the
NAC 391.057 appropriate subject-matter knowledge needed for the
classroom. Such tests should be used for admission into
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/
undergraduate teacher preparation programs. The state
AB428_EN.pdf
should eliminate the basic skills test requirement, or, at
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Special_Qualifications.htm a minimum, accept the equivalent in SAT, ACT or GRE
scores.
recoMMendation
Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
should require that alternate route candidates pro- Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
vide some evidence of good academic performance. enhanced our analysis.
The standard should be higher than what is required of
traditional teacher candidates, such as a 2.75 GPA. The
46 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 34
ogra ssion
requ f major est can
al pr dmi
ms
red
Are states’ alternate
irem or
equi
ition for a
ents
sew lieu o or t
routes selective yet
est r
trad ard
cour sed in required
e
examples of Best Practice
rout
eds tand
ter t
flexible?
ate
exce demic s
mat
be u ajor
ork
ltern
ect-
no m
connecticut meets three admission criteria for a qual-
no a
aca
Subj
ity alternate route: 1) a requirement that candidates
alabama 1
have a GPA higher than what is generally expected in alaska
a traditional preparation program, 2) a requirement arizona
that all candidates pass a subject-area test and 3) flex- arkansas
ibility built into its policy that respects nontraditional california
candidates’ diverse backgrounds. colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Figure 34
Wyoming
1 Elementary candidates only
11 28 19 1
Figure 35 Figure 36
Do states require alternate routes to Do states ensure that alternate route
be selective? teachers have subject matter knowledge?
Nevada
Nevada 21
28 22
18 11
1
no academic academic academic no alternate
standard1 standard
too low
standard
exceeds that
route3 1
of traditional
programs2 Subject insufficient no
matter test testing alternate
required for requirements1,2 route3
admission
1 California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, 1 State does not require subject test at all; exempts some candidates; or
South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin does not require candidate to pass test until program completion.
2 Arizona, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, 2 Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
3 North Dakota Wisconsin, Wyoming
3 North Dakota
Figure 37
Do states accommodate the nontraditional
background of alternate route candidates?
Nevada
31
11
8
1
test can be used no major or Major or no
in lieu of major subject area coursework alternate
or coursework coursework required with no route3
requirements1 requirements2 test out option
1 Alabama4, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
2 Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Washington
3 North Dakota
4 For elementary candidates only
48 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal b – alternate route Preparation
The state should ensure that its alternate routes provide streamlined preparation
that is relevant to the immediate needs of new teachers.
goal components
Figure 38
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Preparation
1. The state should ensure that the number of credit
hours it either requires or allows is manageable for 0 best Practice States
the new teacher. Anything exceeding 12 credit hours
4 States Meet Goal
of coursework (for which the teacher is required to
Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, New Jersey
physically attend a lecture or seminar) in the first
year may be counterproductive, placing too great a 4 States nearly Meet Goal
burden on the teacher. This calculation is premised Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia
on no more than 6 credit hours in the summer, 3 in
the fall and 3 in the spring. 14 States Partly Meet Goal
Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa,
2. The state should ensure that alternate route Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
programs offer accelerated study not to exceed six New York, South Carolina, South Dakota,
courses (exclusive of any credit for mentoring) over Texas, Utah, West Virginia
the duration of the program. Programs should be no
longer than two years, at which time the new teach- 17 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
er should be eligible for a standard certificate. Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana,
3. Any coursework requirements should target the nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma,
immediate needs of the new teacher (e.g., semi- Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
nars with other grade-level teachers, training in a Washington, Wyoming
particular curriculum, reading instruction and class-
room management techniques). 12 States Do not Meet Goal
Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
4. The state should ensure that candidates have an Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
opportunity to practice teach in a summer train- North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin
ing program. Alternatively, the state can provide an
intensive mentoring experience, beginning with a
trained mentor assigned full-time to the new teach-
er for the first critical weeks of school and gradually
reducing the amount of time. The state should
support only induction strategies that can be
effective even in a poorly managed school: intensive
mentoring, seminars appropriate to grade level or n Induction support is especially important for alternate route
subject area, a reduced teaching load and frequent teachers.
release time to observe other teachers. SuPPorting reSearch
rationale Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n The program must provide practical, meaningful
preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 49
stress level. Nevada
area 2: Goal b Nevada analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not ensure that its alternate route candi- Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada
dates will receive streamlined preparation that meets should articulate guidelines regarding the nature and
the immediate needs of new teachers. amount of coursework required of candidates. Re-
Conditional License early childhood candidates must quirements should be manageable and contribute to
complete 35 credit hours of coursework, elementary the immediate needs of new teachers. Appropriate
candidates must complete 32 credit hours of course- coursework should include grade-level or subject-level
work and secondary candidates must complete 22 seminars, methodology in the content area, classroom
credit hours of coursework. Candidates who have com- management, assessment and scientifically based early
pleted student teaching may be able to reduce course- reading instruction. Simply mandating coursework
work requirements. without specifying the purpose can inadvertently send
the wrong message to program providers--that “any-
There is no requirement for practice teaching, although
thing goes” as long as credits are granted. However con-
all candidates receive mentoring.
structive, any course that is not fundamentally practical
Special Qualification License candidates who hold a and immediately necessary should be eliminated as a
bachelor’s or a master’s degree must submit proof of requirement.
participation in a program of student teaching or men-
Further, programs should not be permitted to overbur-
toring or agree to participate in a program of mentor-
den the new teacher by requiring multiple courses to be
ing or courses of pedagogy for the first two years of
taken simultaneously during the school year. The state
employment as a teacher.
should also ensure that the program can be completed
Upon completion of the approved teacher education within two years, and candidates should be eligible for
program and three years of satisfactory teaching expe- a standard certificate upon completion.
rience candidates can earn full certification.
Nevada is commended for requiring Special Qualifica-
tion candidates to participate in some form of practice
Supporting research
teaching and mentoring. Nevada should provide more
NAC 391.057
detailed mentoring guidelines for all candidates to
ensure that new teachers will receive the support they
need to facilitate their success in the classroom. Effec-
tive strategies include practice teaching prior to start-
ing to teach in the classroom, intensive mentoring with
full classroom support in the first few weeks or months
of school, a reduced teaching load and relief time to
allow new teachers to observe experienced teachers
during each school day.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
enhanced our analysis.
50 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 39
nity
ngth
Do states’ alternate routes
ortu
ork
m le
provide streamlined
opp
sew
ork
e
ogra
rout
sew
rt
cour
hing
preparation that meets
ppo
le pr
cour
ate
teac
ined
the immediate needs of
e su
ltern
onab
vant
tice
nsiv
aml
new teachers?
no a
reas
Prac
rele
Stre
inte
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
14 9 24 16 12 1
Figure 40
examples of Best Practice
Do states curb excessive coursework
requirements? arkansas, delaware, georgia and new jersey ensure
Nevada
that their alternate routes provide streamlined prepa-
ration that meets the immediate needs of new teach-
32 ers. Each state requires a manageable number of credit
hours, relevant coursework and intensive mentoring.
14
4
1
yes1 Somewhat2 no no alternate
route3
1 Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas,
Virginia
2 Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming
3 North Dakota
Figure 41
Do states require mentoring of high quality
and intensity?
Nevada
38
12
1
yes1 no no
alternate
route2
1 Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia
2 North Dakota
52 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal c – alternate route Usage and Providers
The state should provide an alternate route that is free from regulatory obstacles
that inappropriately limit its usage and providers.
goal components
Figure 42
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Usage and Providers
1. The state should not treat the alternate route
as a program of last resort or restrict the avail- 0 best Practice States
ability of alternate routes to certain geographic
20 States Meet Goal
areas, grades or subject areas.
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
2. The state should allow districts and nonprofit Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
organizations other than institutions of higher Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
education to operate alternate route programs. North Carolina, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
3. The state should ensure that its alternate route Virginia, Wisconsin
has no requirements that would be difficult to
meet for a provider that is not an institution of 4 States nearly Meet Goal
higher education. Such requirements include
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia
an approval process based on institutional
accreditation or raining requirements articulat-
10 States Partly Meet Goal
ed in only credit hours and not clock hours. Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico,
rationale Oklahoma, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale. 2 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
South Carolina, Vermont
n Alternate routes should be structured to do
more than just address shortages; they should 15 States Do not Meet Goal
provide an alternative pipeline for talented Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
individuals to enter the profession. Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
SuPPorting reSearch nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,
Wyoming
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 53
Nevada
area 2: Goal c Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada limits the usage and providers of its alternate Nevada does not meet this goal. Nevada should provide
route. a true alternative path to certification and eliminate
Nevada’s Conditional License does not have restrictions requirements that alternate route teachers can only be
on the usage of its alternate routes with regard to sub- hired if traditionally certified teachers cannot be found.
ject, grade or geographic teaching areas. However, the The state should allow new teachers to work across all
state does require districts to document that no tradi- grades, subjects and geographic areas.
tionally prepared teachers were available. Nevada lim- The state should also encourage a diversity of providers,
its Special Qualification candidates to teaching only in allowing school districts and nonprofit organizations, in
middle school grades addition to institutions of higher education, to operate
The state only permits institutions of higher educa- programs.
tion to provide alternate route programs. Coursework
requirements are set out only in credit hours, effectively
precluding non-higher education providers. nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
Supporting research enhanced our analysis.
NAC 391.057 and 391.058
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/AB/
AB428_EN.pdf
54 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 43
c are ,
aphi jects
as
Are states’ alternate
eogr sub
s
ider
nd g ross
routes free from
e
rout
prov
es a e ac
examples of Best Practice limitations?
ate
gradad usag
of
ltern
rsity
Twenty states meet this goal, and although NCTQ
no a
Dive
bro
has not singled out one state’s policies for “best
alabama
practice” honors, it commends all states that permit alaska
both broad usage and a diversity of providers for arizona
their alternate routes. arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
28 26 1
Figure 44
Can alternate route teachers teach any
subject or grade anywhere in the state?
28
Nevada
22
1
yes no no
alternate
route
Figure 45
Are providers other than colleges or
universities permitted?
26 Nevada
24
1
yes no no
alternate
route
56 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 46
ous
eme ds
uine
genu
nts
prov at nee
Do states provide real
ute gen
disin
alternative pathways?
nt im e th
e ro arly
e
Figure 47
rout
e is
ifica rout
rnat r ne
ate
Do states provide real alternative pathways?
rout
altenuine o
signernate
ltern
red
no a
offe
24
alt
Ge
Nevada
alabama
alaska
arizona 21
arkansas
california
colorado 5
connecticut
Delaware
1
District of columbia Genuine or alternate offered no
Florida nearly route that route is alternate
genuine needs disingenuous route
Georgia alternate significant
hawaii route improvements
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
5 24 21 1
Figure 48
n
r
atte
maj st ca
ngth
ect m
What are the
u of or te
ork
or
ance
m le
rform ng
s
ort
sew
ork
ider
characteristics of
c pe stro
subj
in lie ired
ogra
supp
sew
cour
prov
sed requ
emi e of
wled n of
states’ alternate
le pr
cour
her
age
ined
acadrequisit
of
knorificatio
ge
ajor
teac
onab
routes?
rsity
d us
vant
aml
no m
new
broa
reas
Dive
be u
rele
Pre
Stre
Ve
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
11 28 19 14 9 24 12 28 26
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal D – alternate route Program accountability
The state should ensure that its approval process for alternate route programs
holds them accountable for the performance of their teachers.
goal components
Figure 49
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Alternate Route
Program Accountability
1. The state should collect some or all of the
following data to create a more comprehensive 0 best Practice States
index of program performance to hold alternate
0 States Meet Goal
route programs accountable:
n■ Average raw scores of graduates on
3 States nearly Meet Goal
licensing tests, including subject matter and Florida, Louisiana, Texas
professional knowledge tests;
n■ Satisfaction ratings by school principals and 5 States Partly Meet Goal
teacher supervisors of programs’ student Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky,
teachers, using a standardized form to Maryland, Tennessee
permit program comparison;
n■ Evaluation results from the first and/or
8 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa,
second year of teaching;
Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont,
n■ Academic achievement gains of graduates’
Washington
students averaged over the first three years
of teaching; and 35 States Do not Meet Goal
n■ Five-year retention rates of graduates in the Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
teaching profession. District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota,
2. The state should also establish the minimum
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
standard of performance for each of these
nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
categories of data. Programs must be held New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
accountable for meeting these standards, and North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
the state, after due process, should shut down Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
programs that do not do so. South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
3. The state should produce and publish on its website
Wyoming
an annual report card that shows all the data that
the state collects on individual teacher preparation
programs.
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Alternate route programs should show they
consistently produce effective teachers.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 59
Nevada
area 2: Goal D Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS grams’ student teachers, using a standardized form to
Nevada neither collects objective, meaningful data to permit program comparison; 3) evaluation results from
measure the performance of its alternate route pro- the first and/or second year of teaching; 4) academic
grams nor applies any transparent, measurable criteria achievement gains of students taught by the pro-
for conferring program approval. grams’ graduates, averaged over the first three years
In addition, Nevada’s website has no report card that of teaching; and 5) five-year retention rates of gradu-
allows the public to review and compare program ates in the teaching profession. To hold these programs
performance. accountable, the state should then establish a minimum
standard of performance for each of these categories of
data. Programs that do not meet the standard, after due
process, should be shut down.
recoMMendation
Finally, Nevada should post an annual report card on its
Nevada does not meet this goal. To generate the hard,
website that details the data it collects for all programs,
objective data needed to hold programs accountable,
both alternate route and traditional, as well as the
the state should make objective outcomes the focus of
criteria used for program approval. This report card
its approval process for alternate route programs and
should also identify the programs that fail to meet
establish precise standards for performance that are
these criteria and cite the reasons why they failed.
useful for accountability purposes.
Nevada should collect meaningful, objective data to
create a comprehensive index of program performance.
NCTQ recommends the use of 1) graduates’ average nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
raw scores on licensing tests (including subject-mat- Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
ter and professional knowledge tests); 2) satisfaction
ratings (by principals and teacher supervisors) of pro-
60 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 50
y
ance
ebsi ublicl
Do states hold alternate
cific ctive
data
orm
s for imum
te
on w ata p
route programs
-spe bje
perf
ram cts o
examples of Best Practice
dard min
lable es d
accountable?
progte colle
avai te mak
stante sets
While no state earns a “best practice” designation for
Sta
Sta
Sta
1
this goal, louisiana comes the closest. Louisiana uses
alabama
objective, meaningful data to measure the performance
alaska
arizona of its alternate route programs and posts this data
arkansas annually on the state’s website. Louisiana is also well
california ahead of other states in setting standards for program
colorado performance and measuring each program according
connecticut to those standards. Program scores are determined
2
Delaware on the basis of a relatively complex rating formula.
District of columbia The state provides a system to reward programs that
1
Florida attain performance scores each year at an Exemplary
Georgia or High Performing level. Teacher preparation programs
hawaii
that are rated as being At Risk for four years or that are
idaho
designated as Low Performing and do not become Sat-
illinois
isfactory within two years lose their state approval.
indiana
iowa
kansas
1
kentucky
louisiana Figure 51
Maine Which states collect meaningful data?
Maryland
Massachusetts
averaGe raW ScOreS ON liceNSiNG TeSTS
Michigan
tennessee
Minnesota
Mississippi SaTiSFacTiON raTiNG FrOm ScHOOlS
Missouri alabama, Florida, kentucky, Maryland, texas, Vermont,
Montana Washington
nebraska
Nevada evaluaTiON reSulTS FOr PrOGram GraduaTeS
new hampshire alabama, Delaware, Michigan, tennessee
new Jersey
STudeNT learNiNG GaiNS1
new Mexico Florida, tennessee, texas
new york
north carolina TeacHer reTeNTiON raTeS
north Dakota3 arkansas, Delaware, Florida, texas
ohio
oklahoma
1 Louisiana is piloting the use of value-added data that connects student
oregon achievement to teacher preparation programs, but not yet using the
Pennsylvania results for accountability purposes.
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
2
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington Figure 50
1 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
West Virginia alternate route program performance because institutional data are not
Wisconsin dissaggregated.
Wyoming 2 The posted data do not allow the public to review and compare
program performance because data are not disaggregated by individual
16 1 7 program provider.
3 North Dakota does not have an alternate route to certification.
area 2: expanding the Pool of Teachers
Goal e – licensure reciprocity
The state should help to make teacher licenses fully portable among states, with
appropriate safeguards.
goal components
Figure 52
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Licensure Reciprocity states’ rating for the goal.)
1 best Practice State 1. The state should offer fully certified teachers
Alabama moving from other states standard licenses,
without using transcript analysis or recency
1 State Meets Goal
requirements as a means of judging eligibility.
Texas
The state can and should require evidence of
3 States nearly Meet Goal good standing in previous employment.
Delaware, North Carolina, West Virginia
2. The state should uphold its standards for all
5 States Partly Meet Goal teachers by insisting that certified teachers
Idaho, New York, Rhode Island, coming from other states meet the incoming
Washington, Wyoming state’s testing requirements.
31 States Meet a Small Part of Goal 3. The state should accord the same license to
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
teachers from other states who completed an
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
approved alternate route program as it accords
Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
teachers prepared in a traditional preparation
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
program.
Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, rationale
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Using transcripts to judge teacher competency
10 States Do not Meet Goal provides little value.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, n Testing requirements should be upheld, not
Nebraska, nevada waived.
n Signing on to the NASDTEC Interstate Agree-
ment at least signals a state’s willingness to
consider portability.
n States licensing out-of-state teachers should
not differentiate between experienced teach-
ers prepared in alternate routes and those
prepared in traditional programs.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
62 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 2: Goal e Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Teachers with valid out-of-state certificates may be eli- Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
gible for Nevada’s initial teaching license. consider adopting a more flexible policy regarding
Applicants must have three years of teaching experi- portability and offer out-of-state teachers compa-
ence, a requirement for which there is no apparent jus- rable licensure. It should also reconsider its experience
tification. Furthermore, Nevada routinely reviews the requirement because if the state is willing to hire its
college transcripts of licensed out-of-state teachers. own inexperienced teachers, it is not clear why it is
States that reach a determination about an applicant’s unwilling to hire inexperienced teachers from other
licensure status on the basis of the course titles listed states, unless the state has too great a supply of teach-
on the applicant’s transcript may end up mistakenly ers and needs to discourage applicants.
equating the amount of required coursework with the Also, transcript reviews are not a particularly meaning-
teacher’s qualifications. ful or efficient exercise, and the state should consider
The state also requires all out-of-state teachers to ei- discontinuing its requirement for the submission of
ther take coursework or pass examinations pertaining transcripts for all teachers. Transcript analysis is likely to
to Nevada school law, the Nevada Constitution and the result in additional coursework requirements, even for
U.S. Constitution. traditionally prepared teachers; alternate route teach-
ers, on the other hand, may have to virtually begin
Regrettably, Nevada grants a waiver for its licensing
anew, repeating some, most or all of a teacher prepara-
tests to any out-of-state teacher with a valid standard
tion program in Nevada.
license from a state other than Iowa, Maine, Montana,
Nebraska or Rhode Island, and who also has one year Regardless of whether a teacher was prepared through
of experience. a traditional or alternate route, all certified out-of-state
teachers should receive equal treatment. State policies
Finally, Nevada has indicated its willingness to sup-
that discriminate against teachers who were prepared
port the portability of teacher licenses by signing the
in an alternate route are not supported by evidence. In
NASDTEC (National Association of State Directors of
fact, a substantial body of research has failed to discern
Teacher Education and Certification) Interstate Agree-
differences in effectiveness between alternate and tra-
ment. While signing this agreement does not ensure
ditional route teachers.
that a state will provide unconditional reciprocity, it is,
at the very least, symbolically important. However, it Nevada’s policy requiring all out-of-state teachers to
has not signed on to the provisions designed to facili- demonstrate knowledge via courses or tests of Nevada
tate licensure reciprocity for alternate route teachers, school law, the Nevada Constitution, and the U.S. Con-
regardless of experience. stitution is sensible. However, the state allows teach-
ers up to three years to meet this requirement, which
SuPPorting reSearch would imply that it does not view this knowledge as
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Reciprocity.htm essential to a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom.
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/
TestingExceptionBulletin.htm
http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/Testing_Requirements.htm
www.nasdtec.org
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 63
Nevada
Nevada should also uphold its standards for all teach- nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
ers and insist that out-of-state teachers meet its own Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
testing requirements. The state takes considerable risk by The state added that in 2009, the legislature modified
granting a waiver for its licensing tests to certain out-of- the teaching experience requirement regarding eligi-
state teachers with a standard license and one year of bility for a licensing-test waiver. The Commission on
experience. The state should not provide any waivers of Professional Standards is now allowed to determine
its teacher tests unless an applicant can provide evidence which examinations from other states are comparable
of a passing score under its own standards. The negative to the examinations required for initial licensure in
impact on student learning stemming from a teacher’s Nevada.
inadequate subject-matter knowledge is not mitigated
by the teacher’s having a license and experience.
Although Nevada has signed the NASDTEC agreement laSt Word
signaling its willingness to support portability, it should While teachers from states using common assessments
take specific steps to include reciprocity for all alternate need not be required to retake licensure tests if they
route teachers. Such an adjustment in policy would have met Nevada’s passing scores, Nevada should not
surely make the state more welcoming to teachers from grant other waivers to its licensing tests, even absent
other states. the one-year experience requirement.
64 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 54
h no
What do states require
hed wit
ents
of teachers transferring
ttac city
irem
examples of Best Practice
gs a ipro
from other states?
requ
strin nse rec
ts
scrip
ncy
alabama makes teacher licenses fully portable among
lice
rece
tran
states by not specifying any additional coursework or
alabama
recency requirements to determine eligibility for either alaska
traditional or alternate route teachers. The state also arizona
does not grant any waivers of its testing requirements arkansas
and appropriately requires all out-of-state teachers to california
meet Alabama’s passing scores on assessments. It has colorado
also signed on to the NASDTEC agreement, signaling connecticut
the state’s willingness to consider licensure reciprocity Delaware
for teachers from other states. District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
Figure 53
idaho
Do states require all out-of-state teachers to illinois
pass their licensure tests? indiana
Nevada iowa
kansas
kentucky
36 louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
15 Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
yes1 no new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
1 Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, 1
North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, new york
Washington, Wisconsin north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
1
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
1
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1
Wyoming
Figure 54 9 41 14
1 For traditionally-prepared teachers only
Figure 55
arati ually
teac cles
ate r ate o the
hers
te
Do states treat out-of-state
oute bsta
cher or alt nt
erna
prep s eq
on
ltern o cre with
e tea ts f fere
teachers the same whether
s of cher
rout iremen fies dif
for aential t policies
they were prepared in a
rdles s tea
s
requte speci
traditional or an alternate
regate treat
pot te has
route program?
Sta
Sta
Sta
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
6 7 38
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal a – State Data Systems
The state should develop a data system that contributes some of the evidence
needed to assess teacher effectiveness.
goal components
Figure 56
(The factors considered in determining the states’
rating for the goal.) How States are Faring in the Development
of Data Systems
1. The state should establish a longitudinal data
system with at least the following key compo- 1 best Practice State
nents: Tennessee
n■ A unique statewide student identifier number
0 States Meet Goal
that connects student data across key data-
bases across years; 2 States nearly Meet Goal
n■ A unique teacher identifier system that can Louisiana, Ohio
match individual teacher records with indi-
vidual student records; and 18 States Partly Meet Goal
n■ An assessment system that can match indi- Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
vidual student test records from year to year Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Mississippi,
in order to measure academic growth. Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
2. Value-added data provided through the state’s South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia,
longitudinal data system should be considered Wyoming
among the criteria used to determine teachers’
effectiveness. 28 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho,
rationale Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
n Value-added analysis connects student data to New Jersey, New York, North Dakota,
teacher data to measure achievement and per- Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
formance. Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin
n There are a number of responsible uses for
value-added analysis. 2 States Do not Meet Goal
Maryland, nevada
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 67
Nevada
area 3: Goal a Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not have a data system that can be used Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should be
to provide evidence of teacher effectiveness. able to use its assigned teacher identifiers to match in-
However, Nevada does have two of three necessary dividual teacher records with individual student records,
elements that would allow for the development of a thereby enabling the development of value-added
student- and teacher-level longitudinal data system. analysis. The state should also support the use of value-
The state has assigned unique student identifiers that added data to provide part of the evidence of teacher
connect student data across key databases across years. effectiveness, particularly for decisions about granting
It also has the capacity to match student test records teachers tenure. Value-added data are also important
from year to year in order to measure student academic and necessary for local districts adopting performance
growth. pay plans to reliably measure individual teacher and
overall school performance.
Although Nevada assigns teacher identification num-
bers, it cannot match individual teacher records with
individual student records.
Regrettably, the state specifically prohibits data from nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
the state data system to be used for “the purpose of Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
evaluating an individual teacher.”
SuPPorting reSearch
www.dataqualitycampaign.org
Nevada Revised Statute 386.650
68 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 58
ses
ss da that
time
taba
s
er re ds
cord
acro tifier
r
Do state data systems
tifie
each ecor
over
data iden
iden
ith t ent r
have the capacity to
atch
ects dent
examples of Best Practice
cher
ch w tud
reliably assess teacher
rds m
mat idual s
systique tea
connque stu
effectiveness?
reco
em
tennessee not only has all three elements of a stu-
indiv
Uni
test
Un
dent- and teacher-level longitudinal data system--
alabama
unique student identifiers that connect student data alaska
across key databases across years, unique teacher arizona
identifiers that enable the state to match individual arkansas
teacher records with individual student records and california
the capacity to match student test records from year colorado
to year so as to measure student academic growth- connecticut
-but it is also the only state that uses this value- Delaware
added data to measure teacher effectiveness by District of columbia
isolating each teacher’s impact on individual stu- Florida
Georgia
dents’ academic growth. It translates this impact
hawaii
into a “teacher effect” score and then uses it as part
idaho
of a teacher’s evaluation.
illinois
indiana
iowa
Figure 57 kansas
kentucky
Do states use value-added data as a criterion louisiana
for assessing teacher effectiveness?
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
48 Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Nevada
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada1
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york2
north carolina
north Dakota
3 ohio
oklahoma
Use value- Do not oregon
added data1 use value- Pennsylvania
added data rhode island
South carolina
1 Louisiana uses value-added data to assess certain aspects of teacher South Dakota
effectiveness; however, this information is not used to decide tenure.
Ohio uses value-added data to improve classroom instruction; tennessee
however, it is not clear whether this information plays a role in teacher texas
evaluations. Tennessee uses value-added data to measure teacher
effectiveness by isolating the impact each teacher has on individual Utah
students’ academic growth, which can be used as part of a teacher’s Vermont
evaluation.
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Figure 58
1 Nevada prohibits the use of value-added data in teacher evaluations.
Wisconsin
2 New York prohibits the use of student-achievement data in teacher
Wyoming
tenure decisions.
50 46 48 21
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal b – evaluation of effectiveness
The state should require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant
criterion of any teacher evaluation.
goal components
Figure 59
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Evaluating states’ rating for the goal.)
Teacher Effectiveness
1. The state should either require a common
1 best Practice State evaluation instrument in which evidence of stu-
Florida
dent learning is the most significant criterion or
should specifically require that student learn-
3 States Meet Goal
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas ing be the preponderant consideration in local
evaluation processes. Evaluation instruments,
0 States nearly Meet Goal whether state or locally developed, should be
structured so as to preclude a teacher from re-
ceiving a satisfactory rating if found ineffective
11 States Partly Meet Goal in the classroom.
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, 2. Evaluation instruments should require class-
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah room observations that focus on and document
the effectiveness of instruction.
22 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, 3. Teacher evaluations should consider objective
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, evidence of student learning, including not only
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, nevada, standardized test scores, but also classroom-
New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, based artifacts such as tests, quizzes and stu-
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin dent work.
14 States Do not Meet Goal rationale
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Idaho,
Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, See appendix for detailed rationale.
New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode n Teachers should be judged primarily by their
Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming impact on students.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
70 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 3: Goal b Nevada analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not require instructional effectiveness to be Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. Nevada
the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation. is commended for requiring classroom observation, but
Nevada requires that all teachers be observed in the it should consider revising its policy to require local
classroom and that teacher evaluations include the fol- districts to use evidence of student learning garnered
lowing: an evaluation of classroom management skills, through objective measures such as standardized test
a review of lesson plans and work logs, an evaluation of results, in addition to subjective measures, as the pre-
whether the curriculum taught aligns with content and ponderant criterion of teacher evaluations. The state
performance standards and an evaluation of whether the should also ensure that evaluation instruments do not
teacher is addressing the needs of students. permit teachers found ineffective in the classroom to
receive satisfactory ratings.
Unfortunately, Nevada prohibits the use of data
from its state data system for the purpose of teacher Furthermore, the state should end its prohibition on using
evaluations. data from the state data system for teacher evaluations.
Nevada places an unnecessary burden on its districts to
SuPPorting reSearch create their own data systems rather than permitting
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 391.3125 and 386.650 them to use statewide data as part of the evidence of
teacher performance.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 71
Nevada
Figure 60
res o lude
ude
uati rion e
for
eval crite e th
earn easu inc
rvati incl
f
Do states consider
teac onder arning e of
ent l ive m on to
her ant to b
obse tion to
on
prepdent leevidenc
classroom effectiveness
on
stud objectevaluati
room alua
ing
as part of teacher examples of Best Practice
classuires ev
stu quires
any uires
evaluations?
florida explicitly requires teacher evaluations to
req
re
req
be based primarily on evidence of student learning.
alabama
alaska
The state requires evaluations to rely on classroom
arizona observations as well as objective measures of stu-
arkansas dent learning, including state assessment data.
california South carolina, tennessee and texas also structure
colorado their formal evaluations so that teachers cannot get
connecticut an overall satisfactory rating unless they also get a
Delaware satisfactory rating on classroom effectiveness
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
Figure 61
idaho
illinois Sources of objective evidence of
indiana student learning
iowa
Many educators struggle to identify possible
kansas
sources of objective student data. here are
kentucky
some examples:
louisiana1
Maine n Standardized test scores
Maryland n Periodic diagnostic assessments
Massachusetts n Benchmark assessments that show
Michigan student growth
Minnesota2 n artifacts of student work connected
Mississippi to specific student learning standards
Missouri that are randomly selected for review
Montana by the principal or senior faculty, scored
nebraska using rubrics and descriptors
Nevada n examples of typical assignments,
new hampshire assessed for their quality and rigor
new Jersey n Periodic checks on progress with the
new Mexico curriculum coupled with evidence of
new york student mastery of the curriculum from
north carolina quizzes, tests and exams
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia Figure 60
1 Louisiana has an optional teacher evaluation system that does make
Wisconsin explicit the need to include objective measures of student learning as
Wyoming part of the teacher evaluation.
2 Minnesota has implemented an optional teacher evaluation system
30 16 4 based on evidence of student learning as measured by classroom
observations and objective measures, such as student achievement data.
Figure 62
trum cally ut
ent te-
t ap t or
d ins ve lo ce b
tate alen men e-
ed
trum e sta
by s l equiv instru e stat
Do states direct how
prov
lope ppro uidan
ents
ents
trum lly
t
men
d ins st us
d ins loca
stru n
loca elopedmust us
teachers should be
on in ole i
deves not avides g
lope s mu
lope oves
uati no r
evaluated?
devete appr
dev tricts
devedistrict
doe te pro
eval te has
Dis
Sta
Sta
Sta
all
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia 1
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana 1
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island 1
South carolina
South Dakota 1
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Figure 62
9 3 2 17 20 1 The state has no policy regarding any aspect of
teacher evaluations.
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal c – Frequency of evaluations
The state should require annual evaluations of all teachers and multiple
evaluations of all new teachers.
goal components
Figure 63
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Frequency of states’ rating for the goal.)
Evaluations
1. The state should require that all nonproba-
1 best Practice State tionary teachers receive a formal evaluation
Oklahoma
annually.
5 States Meet Goal
Idaho, nevada, New Jersey, North 2. The state should require that all new, nonper-
Dakota, Washington manent teachers receive a minimum of two
formal evaluations annually. At least one evalu-
4 States nearly Meet Goal ation should occur during the first half of the
Arizona, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming school year.
14 States Partly Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, n Annual evaluations are standard practice in
South Carolina, West Virginia
most professional jobs.
6 States Meet a Small Part of Goal n Evaluations are especially important for new
Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, teachers.
North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah
SuPPorting reSearch
21 States Do not Meet Goal Research citations to support this goal are avail-
Alaska, California, Colorado, able at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,
Wisconsin
74 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 3: Goal c Nevada analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada requires that new teachers be evaluated three Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended for
times a year. A conference and written evaluation for a requiring an efficient method to assess new teacher
probationary teacher must be concluded no later than performance in the classroom early in the year and
December 1, February 1 and April 1 of each school year address an unsatisfactory performance with a plan for
of the probationary period. improvement. The state is also commended for requiring
Nonprobationary teachers in Nevada are required to be that nonprobationary teachers be evaluated annually.
evaluated annually.
SuPPorting reSearch nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada Statute 391.3125 Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 75
Nevada
Figure 64
Do states require districts to evaluate all
veteran teachers each year?
examples of Best Practice
oklahoma not only requires that new teachers be
yes no
evaluated twice a year, but it also articulates that the
alabama
alaska1
first evaluation must be completed by November 15.
arizona This allows new teacher performance to be assessed
arkansas early in the year with an unsatisfactory performance
california addressed by an improvement plan. Oklahoma also
colorado requires that nonprobationary teachers are evalu-
connecticut ated annually.
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia Figure 65
hawaii Do states require districts to evaluate all
idaho veteran teachers each year?
illinois
indiana
iowa
36
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland Nevada
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota2 15
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
yes no
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina3
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas4
Utah
Vermont
Virginia Figure 64
1 Teachers in Alaska who exceed performance standards can waive annual
Washington evaluation; they are evaluated every two years.
West Virginia 2 Minnesota requires multiple evaluations per year for teachers who
Wisconsin participate in the optional QComp program.
Wyoming 3 North Carolina allows districts to grant waivers to its annual evaluation
requirement.
15 36 4 Texas’s annual evaluation may be waived for teachers rated proficient on
most recent evaluation.
Figure 68
How many times do
Figure 66 states require districts to
es
d
evaluate a new teacher
e tim
esse
How many times do states require districts to
addr
during a school year?
mor
evaluate a new teacher during a school year?
es
e
1 tim
2 tim
3 or
not
alabama1
18 alaska
14 arizona
arkansas2
9 Nevada
california
10 colorado
connecticut
Delaware3
not 1 2 3 or more District of columbia
addressed time times times Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
Figure 67
illinois
Do states require districts to evaluate new indiana
teachers early in the school year? iowa
kansas
kentucky1
25 louisiana
Nevada Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
17 9
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri1
Montana
yes1 no evaluation nebraska
frequency Nevada
not addressed2 new hampshire
1 Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, new Jersey
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South new Mexico
Carolina, Washington, West Virginia
new york
2 District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont north carolina1
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee1
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Figure 68
1 State requires multiple observations followed by Washington3
post-observation conferences. West Virginia1
2 The state’s mentoring program requires multiple Wisconsin4
observations followed by formative feedback.
Wyoming
3 State requires two observations followed by
post-observation conferences. 9 18 14 10
4 Only applies to first-year teachers
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal D – tenure
The state should require that tenure decisions be meaningful.
goal components
Figure 69
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Tenure states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. A teacher should be eligible for tenure after a
certain number of years of service, but tenure
0 States Meet Goal should not be granted automatically at that
juncture.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
0 States Partly Meet Goal 2. The state should articulate a process, such as a
hearing, that local districts must administer in
11 States Meet a Small Part of Goal considering the evidence and deciding whether
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, a teacher should receive tenure.
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio 3. Evidence of effectiveness should be the prepon-
derant criterion in tenure decisions.
40 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
4. The minimum years of service needed to achieve
Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
tenure should allow sufficient data to be accu-
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
mulated on which to base tenure decisions; five
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
years is the ideal minimum.
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, rationale
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
See appendix for detailed rationale.
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, n Tenure should be a significant and consequen-
Wisconsin, Wyoming tial milestone in a teacher’s career.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
78 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 3: Goal D Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS minimum probationary period for tenure to five years,
Nevada does not require any process to ensure that which would allow for the accumulation of sufficient
tenure decisions are meaningful. data on teacher effectiveness to support meaningful
Nevada has a two-year probationary period for new tenure decisions. Although it is appropriate for teachers
teachers, but first-year teachers with three consecutive to achieve tenure after a certain number of years, tenure
satisfactory evaluations may qualify for tenure at the should not automatically be granted at this juncture. To
end of their first year. There is no indication that at the justify this leap in professional standing, most notably a
conclusion of this period any additional process evalu- tremendous advantage in due process, the state should
ating cumulative evidence of teacher effectiveness is identify a process, such as a hearing, that local districts
required for tenure. The awarding of tenure appears to would be required to administer, where the cumulative
be virtually automatic. evidence of teacher effectiveness would be considered
for each teacher and a determination made of whether
SuPPorting reSearch to award tenure. Teacher effectiveness in the classroom,
Nevada Revised Statute 391.3197 rather than years of experience, should be the prepon-
derant criterion in tenure decisions.
recoMMendation
Nevada does not meet this goal. The awarding of ten- nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
ure is a milestone in every teacher’s career and should Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
be afforded the consideration it deserves, regardless of
whether the state is bestowing a lifetime or limited-
term position. The state should consider extending the
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 79
Nevada
Figure 70
How long before a
teacher earns tenure?
examples of Best Practice
olicy
ars
ars
ars
ars
ars
ars
ar
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any
no P
1 ye
2 ye
3 ye
4 ye
5 ye
6 ye
7 ye
state’s policy in this area. All states need
alabama to improve how tenure is awarded, but four
alaska states have policies that are initial steps in
arizona the right direction. iowa and new Mexico
arkansas require the consideration of some evi-
california dence of teacher performance when making
colorado tenure decisions, although it is not the
connecticut preponderant criterion. Minnesota requires
Delaware local school boards to consult with peer re-
District of columbia view committees that evaluate probation-
Florida ary teachers, but there is no requirement
Georgia that teacher effectiveness must be consid-
hawaii ered. New policy in north carolina requires
idaho teachers to achieve a minimum “proficient”
illinois rating on all five of the state’s professional
indiana teaching standards on their annual evalua-
iowa
tions in order to be recommended for tenure.
Regrettably, evidence of student learning is not
kansas
the preponderant criterion in the evaluation.
kentucky
louisiana
Maine1
Maryland
Figure 71
Massachusetts
Michigan How are tenure decisions made?
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 47
Montana
nebraska Nevada
Nevada2
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon 4
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina consideration of Virtually
some evidence1 automatically
South Dakota
tennessee
1 Iowa, New Mexico and North Carolina require some
texas evidence of teacher performance, although evidence
Utah of student learning is not the preponderant criterion.
Minnesota requires a peer review process, but does not
Vermont specify that the review include classroom effectiveness.
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming Figure 70
1 The probationary period must not exceed two years.
1 2 8 32 5 2 0 1 2 New teachers with three consecutive satisfactory
evaluations may qualify for tenure after one year.
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal e – licensure advancement
The state should ensure that licensure advancement is based on
evidence of effectiveness.
goal components
Figure 72
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Licensure Advancement
1. The state should base advancement from a pro- 1 best Practice State
bationary to a nonprobationary license on evi- New Mexico
dence of classroom effectiveness.
0 States Meet Goal
2. The state should not require teachers to fulfill 0 States nearly Meet Goal
general, nonspecific coursework requirements
to advance from a probationary to a nonproba- 14 States Partly Meet Goal
tionary license. Arkansas, California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio,
3. The state should not require teachers to have an South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
advanced degree as a condition of professional Washington, Wisconsin
licensure.
13 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
rationale
Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska,
See appendix for detailed rationale. New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island
n The reason for probationary licensure should be
to determine teacher effectiveness. 23 States Do not Meet Goal
n Most state requirements for achieving per- Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut Delaware,
manent certification have not been shown to District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
impact teacher effectiveness. Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, nevada, New York,
SuPPorting reSearch North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Research citations to support this goal are South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Wyoming
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 81
Nevada
area 3: Goal e Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada’s requirements for licensure renewal include Nevada does not meet this goal. The state’s licensure
factors that have not been shown to advance teacher requirements are not based on factors that measure or
effectiveness. advance teacher effectiveness. While targeted require-
Nevada employs a single-tier certification, so new ments may potentially expand teacher knowledge and
teachers apply for the appropriate certificate (generally improve teacher practice, general, nonspecific course-
either Elementary or Secondary), and then, rather than work requirements merely call for teachers to complete
advancing to another level, they renew. The require- a certain amount of seat time. These vague require-
ment for renewal is completion of six credits. ments clearly do not correlate with teacher effective-
ness and should be clarified for specificity. The state
SuPPorting reSearch should require evidence of effectiveness to be a factor
Nevada Statute NRS 391.031 in determining whether teachers advance to the next
licensure level.
Renewal Requirements http://nvteachers.doe.nv.gov/
GuidelinesRequirements_Renewals.htm
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
82 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 73
ness
her
of
Do states require teachers to
ctive
teac
nce
ness evide
effe
ance e of
show evidence of effectiveness
examples of Best Practice
orm enc
of
ctive ant
before conferring professional
nce
perfme evid
effe onder
vide
licensure? In addition to three years’ teaching experience and
Prep
no e
So
completing the mentoring requirement, new Mexico
alabama requires new teachers to submit a professional develop-
alaska
ment dossier to advance from the probationary to the
arizona
nonprobationary certificate. The dossier is divided into
arkansas
five strands, including evidence of teacher effectiveness
california
colorado and evidence of student learning, and teachers must
connecticut meet or exceed the standards in all strands to advance.
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida Figure 74
Georgia
Do states require teachers to earn
hawaii
advanced degrees before conferring
idaho professional licensure?
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky Nevada
35
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
11
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
5
Montana
nebraska yes, required required no
Nevada for mandatory for optional
new hampshire professional advanced
license1 license2
new Jersey
new Mexico
1 Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Oregon all
new york require a master’s degree or coursework equivalent to a
north carolina master’s degree.
north Dakota 2 Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana,
ohio Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
35 15 1
Figure 75
Do states require teachers to take additional,
nonspecific coursework before conferring
professional licensure?
28
Nevada
23
yes1 no
1 Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming
84 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
area 3: identifying effective Teachers
Goal F – equitable Distribution
The state should contribute to the equitable distribution of teacher talent among
schools in its districts by means of good reporting.
goal components
Figure 76
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Equitable Distribution
The state should make the following data publicly 0 best Practice States
available:
1. An index for each school that includes factors
0 States Meet Goal
associated with teacher quality, such as: 0 States nearly Meet Goal
n■ teachers’ average SAT or ACT scores;
n■ the percentage of teachers failing basic skills 6 States Partly Meet Goal
licensure test at least once; Connecticut, New Jersey, New York,
n■ the percentage of teachers on emergency North Carolina, Rhode Island,
credentials; South Carolina
n■ average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate
colleges; and 34 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n■ the percentage of new teachers;
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
2. The percentage of highly qualified teachers,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
disaggregated both by individual school and by
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
teaching area;
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
3. The annual teacher absenteeism rate reported
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
for the previous three years, disaggregated by Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
individual school;
11 States Do not Meet Goal
4. The average teacher turnover rate for the previous Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,
three years, disaggregated by individual school, New Hampshire, North Dakota,
by district and by reasons that teachers leave. Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont,
Wyoming
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Distribution data should show more than
just teachers’ years of experience and highly
qualified status.
n States need to report data at the level of the
individual school.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 85
Nevada
area 3: Goal F Nevada analysis
State Meets a Small Part of Goal
analySiS basic skills licensure tests at least once, the percentage
Comprehensive reporting may be the state’s most of teachers on emergency credentials, the selectivity of
important role for ensuring the equitable distribution of teachers’ undergraduate colleges and the percentage of
teachers among schools. Nevada reports little school- new teachers. School report cards should also include
level data that can help support the equitable distribu- teacher turnover rates. These data can also be used to
tion of teacher talent. address issues of staff quality and stability. Providing
Nevada does not collect or publicly report most of the comparative data for schools with similar poverty and
data recommended by NCTQ. The state does not pro- minority populations would yield an even more com-
vide a school-level teacher quality index that demon- prehensive picture of gaps in the equitable distribution
strates the academic background of a school’s teachers of teachers.
and the ratio of new to veteran teachers. Nevada also
does not report on teacher turnover rates.
Nevada does report on the percentage of highly quali- nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
fied teachers and the average teacher attendance rate. Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
Commendably, these data are reported for each school,
rather than aggregated by district. Nevada’s 2008 Equity
Plan also includes data comparing teacher experience at
high- and low-poverty schools.
Figure 77
SuPPorting reSearch Does Nevada publicly report
Nevada Core Subject Classes Not Taught by Highly school-level data about teachers?
Qualified Teachers http://www.nevadareportcard.com/
Nevada Not Highly Qualified Teachers in low and high an index for each school that includes
poverty schools http://www.nevadareportcard.com/ factors associated with teacher quality no
Nevada Teachers Attendance and Waivers Percentage of teachers on emergency
http://www.nevadareportcard.com/ credentials1 no
Nevada’s Equity Plan http://www.nde.doe.nv.gov/
Accountability/NCLB/08_NV_Equity_Plan-on_DOE.pdf
Percentage of new teachers1 no
Percentage of highly qualified teachers
yeS
recoMMendation annual turnover rate
Nevada meets only a small part of this goal. The state no
should expand its data collection and reporting efforts
teacher absenteeism rate
to include other areas that would shine a light on the yeS
distribution of teachers both across and within districts.
Individual school report cards should include an index 1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of teachers on
of teacher quality with such data as teachers’ average emergency credentials would be incorporated into a teacher quality index.
SAT or ACT scores, the percentage of teachers failing
86 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
nevada
Figure 78
qual ssociat l that
ed
rs 1
ualifi
ed
Do states publicly
ntia 1 n
teac tors schoo
rede ers o
ache
rate
hly q
ls
report school-level
w te
cy c each
ism
ate
ity
with udes fac r each
a
f hig
ver r
examples of Best Practice
ntee
f ne
rgen of t
data about teachers?
incl index fo
ge o
urno
abse
ge o
her
eme entage
enta
enta
ual t
hers
her
No state has an outstanding record when it
Perc
an
Perc
teac
Perc
teac
ann
comes to public reporting of teacher data that
alabama
alaska can help to ameliorate inequities in teacher
arizona quality. However, connecticut, new jersey,
arkansas new york, north carolina, rhode island
california and South carolina report more school-level
colorado data than other states. Each of these states
connecticut reports four of the five following factors at
Delaware the school level: the percentage of teachers
District of columbia on emergency credentials, the percentage
Florida of new teachers, the percentage of highly
Georgia
qualified teachers, the annual absenteeism
hawaii
rate and the average teacher turnover rate.
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 Ideally, percentage of new teachers and percentage of
0 18 10 39 7 5 teachers on emergency credentials would be incorporated
into a teacher quality index.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal a – induction
The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special
emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.
goal components
Figure 79
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Induction
1. The state should require that new teachers 1 best Practice State
receive a high-quality mentoring experience. South Carolina
2. The state should ensure that new teachers
9 States Meet Goal
Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky,
receive mentoring of sufficient frequency and
Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
duration, especially in the first critical weeks of
North Carolina, West Virginia
school.
15 States nearly Meet Goal
3. Mentors should be carefully selected based on California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas,
evidence of their own classroom effectiveness Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
and subject-matter expertise. Mentors should Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma,
be trained, and their performance as mentors Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia
should be evaluated.
10 States Partly Meet Goal
4. Induction programs should include only strate- Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Maryland,
gies that can be successfully implemented even New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
in a poorly managed school. Such strategies Washington, Wisconsin
include intensive mentoring, seminars appro-
7 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
priate to grade level or subject area, a reduced Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
teaching load and frequent release time to North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas
observe other teachers.
9 States Do not Meet Goal
rationale Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia,
Minnesota, nevada, New Hampshire,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Oregon, Vermont, Wyoming
n Too many new teachers are left to “sink or
swim” when they begin teaching.
n Vague requirements simply to provide
mentoring are insufficient.
n New teachers in high-needs schools
particularly need quality mentoring.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 89
Nevada
area 4: Goal a Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada does not require a mentoring program or any Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
other induction support for its new teachers.
Figure 80
recoMMendation
Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should Does Nevada policy articulate the elements
require that new teachers are provided with a high-
of an effective induction program?
quality mentoring experience. To ensure that provided
support is meaningful, Nevada should require induction Mentoring for all new teachers no
strategies that can be successfully implemented, even in
poorly managed schools, such as intensive mentoring, Mentoring of sufficient frequency
and duration no
seminars appropriate to grade level or subject area, a
reduced teaching load and/or frequent release time to
Mentoring provided at beginning
observe other teachers.
of school year
no
careful selection of mentors no
Mentors must be trained no
Mentors must be evaluated no
Mentor is compensated no
Use of a variety of effective
induction strategies no
90 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 82
Do states have policies that
n
ctio
articulate the elements of
indu
ion
examples of Best Practice effective induction?
k
duct
n
wea
ctio
ng in
ted/
ndu
South carolina requires that all new teachers,
no i
limi
Stro
prior to the start of the school year, be assigned
alabama
mentors for at least one year. Districts carefully alaska
select mentors, who must undergo additional train- arizona
ing, based on experience and similar certifications arkansas
and grade levels. Adequate release time is mandated california
by the state so that mentors and new teachers may colorado
observe each other in the classroom, collaborate on connecticut
effective teaching techniques and develop professional Delaware
growth plans. Mentor evaluations are mandatory and District of columbia
stipends are recommended. Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
Figure 81 illinois
Do states have policies that articulate the indiana
elements of effective induction? iowa
kansas
kentucky
25 louisiana
Maine
Maryland
16 Massachusetts
Nevada Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
10 Missouri
Montana
nebraska
no limited / weak Strong
induction induction induction Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
10 16 25
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal b – Pay Scales
The state should give local districts full authority for pay scales, eliminating
potential barriers such as state salary schedules and other regulations that
control how districts pay teachers.
goal components
Figure 83
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring in Pay Scales states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. While the state may articulate teachers’ start-
ing salaries, it should not require districts to
0 States Meet Goal adhere to a state-dictated salary schedule that
sets minimum pay for every level.
1 State nearly Meets Goal
Minnesota
2. The state should discourage districts from tying
30 States Partly Meet Goal additional compensation to advanced degrees.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, The state should eliminate salary schedules
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, that establish higher minimum salaries or other
Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, requirements to pay more to teachers with
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, advanced degrees.
Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, 3. The state should discourage salary schedules
North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, that imply that teachers with the most expe-
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, rience are the most effective. The state should
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming eliminate salary schedules that require that the
highest steps on the pay scale be determined
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
solely by seniority.
Illinois, Rhode Island, Texas
17 States Do not Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, n Compensation reform can be accomplished
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, within the context of local control.
Washington, West Virginia
n There is an important difference between a
state’s setting the minimum teacher salary and
setting a salary schedule.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
92 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal b Nevada analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada gives local districts the authority for pay scales, Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
eliminating barriers such as state salary schedules and commended for not requiring districts to adhere to
other regulations that control how districts pay teach- a state-dictated salary schedule, it should articulate
ers. Salaries are determined by local districts based on policies that definitively discourage districts from tying
“the character of the service required.” compensation to advanced degrees or assuming teachers
with the most experience are the most effective. Such
SuPPorting reSearch policies would ensure that the highest steps on the pay
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.160 scales are not determined solely by seniority.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 93
Nevada
Figure 84
What role does the
ry
lary
ority
sala
state play in deciding
m sa
examples of Best Practice
dule um
istri auth
teacher pay rates?
imu
sches minim
cts
to d es full
min
Unfortunately, no state meets this goal. Twenty-five
Giv
Set
Sets
states do not require districts to adhere to salary sched-
alabama
alaska
ules or minimum salary requirements, giving them full
arizona control of teacher pay rate. Although no state has
arkansas articulated a policy that discourages tying compen-
california sation to advanced degrees or basing salary solely on
colorado1 years of experience, Minnesota’s Quality Compensa-
connecticut tion for Teachers program is on the right track. Q Comp
Delaware requirements prevent participating districts’ local salary
District of columbia schedules from tying compensation primarily to factors
Florida that do not correlate with teacher effectiveness, while
Georgia
still allowing districts the flexibility to establish their
hawaii
own pay system and policies.
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa Figure 85
kansas
What role does the state play in deciding
kentucky
teacher pay rates?
louisiana
Maine Nevada
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
17 25
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 9
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
Sets minimum Sets Gives full
new Jersey salary schedule minimum authority to
new Mexico salary districts
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island2
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 84
Wyoming 1 Colorado gives districts option of a salary schedule, a performance pay
policy or a combination of both.
17 9 25 2 Rhode Island requires that local district salary schedules are based on
years of service, experience and training.
Figure 86
Do states require districts to pay
more to teachers who have earned
advanced degrees?
yes no
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado1
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho2
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island3
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia Figure 86
Wisconsin 1 If Colorado districts choose to have salary schedules, one variable must
be teacher’s education.
Wyoming
2 Idaho refers to “education index” in district-determined schedules.
18 33 3 Rhode Island requires local district salary schedules to include teacher
“training.”
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal c – retention Pay
The state should support retention pay, such as significant boosts in salary after
tenure is awarded, for effective teachers.
goal components
Figure 87
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Retention Pay states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. The state should encourage districts to provide
a significant pay increase to teachers awarded
0 States Meet Goal tenure, provided tenure is based on sufficient
data to determine effectiveness.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
0 States Partly Meet Goal 2. The state should not support longevity bonus-
es, which are awarded at the end of teachers’
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal careers and do not provide effective retention
strategies.
51 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, rationale
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, n Connecting additional compensation to the
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, awarding of tenure would add to its significance
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and improve teacher retention.
nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
SuPPorting reSearch
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Research citations to support this goal are
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming examples of Best Practice
Unfortunately, NCTQ cannot highlight any state’s
policy in this area.
96 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal c Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not support retention pay for effective Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
teachers, such as significant boosts in salary after ten- encourage local districts to provide a significant pay
ure is awarded. It is up to local districts to determine increase to teachers awarded tenure, provided tenure
salary schedules and/or policies. is based on sufficient data to determine effectiveness.
Offering financial incentives for classroom performance
SuPPorting reSearch is a valuable tool for keeping effective new teachers
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.160 in the school system, rather than more commonly
employed incentives such as longevity bonuses, which
are awarded toward the end of teachers’ careers and are
not connected to teachers’ effectiveness.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 97
Nevada
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal D – compensation for Prior Work experience
The state should encourage districts to provide compensation for related prior
subject-area work experience.
goal components
Figure 88
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Compensation for states’ rating for the goal.)
Prior Work Experience
1. The state should encourage districts to com-
1 best Practice State pensate new teachers with relevant prior work
North Carolina experience through mechanisms such as starting
these teachers at an advanced step on the pay
1 State Meets Goal
scale. Further, the state should not have regula-
California
tory language that would block such strategies.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
4 States Partly Meet Goal
rationale
Delaware, Georgia, Texas, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale.
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n Districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
45 States Do not Meet Goal with relevant work experience more than other
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, new teachers.
Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, SuPPorting reSearch
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Research citations to support this goal are
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
98 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal D Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not encourage local districts to provide Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
compensation for related prior subject-area work expe- encourage local school districts to compensate new
rience. However, the state does not seem to have regu- teachers with relevant prior work experience through
latory language blocking such strategies. mechanisms such as starting these new teachers at an
advanced step on the pay scale.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 99
Nevada
Figure 89
examples of Best Practice
Do states direct districts to compensate
teachers for related prior work experience? north carolina compensates new teachers with
relevant prior-work experience by awarding them one
yes1 year of experience credit for every year of full-time
Nevada work, after earning a bachelor’s degree, that is related
to their area of licensure and work assignment. One
6 year of credit is awarded for every two years of work
experience completed prior to earning a bachelor’s
degree.
45
no
1 California, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Washington
100 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal e – Differential Pay
The state should support differential pay for effective teaching in shortage and
high-needs areas.
goal components
Figure 90
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Differential Pay
1. The state should support differential pay for 1 best Practice State
effective teaching in shortage subject areas. Georgia
2. The state should support differential pay for 15 States Meet Goal
effective teaching in high-needs schools. Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
3. The state should not have regulatory language nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
that would block differential pay Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming
3 States nearly Meet Goal
rationale Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington
See appendix for detailed rationale. 5 States Partly Meet Goal
n States should take the lead in addressing Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Utah,
chronic shortages and needs. Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch 9 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Research citations to support this goal are available Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana,
at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Vermont
18 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
West Virginia
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 101
Nevada
area 4: Goal e Nevada analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada supports differential pay by which a teacher Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended
can earn additional compensation by teaching certain for supporting differential pay initiatives to link
subjects. The state provides that those teaching math- compensation more closely with district needs and to
ematics, science, special education, English as a sec- achieve a more equitable distribution of teachers.
ond language or those in “other areas of need” may be
compensated up to an additional $3,500 annually if the
state superintendent has deemed the subject to be an nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
area of need in a school district. Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
Nevada also supports differential pay for those teach-
ing in high-needs schools. Teachers in “at-risk” schools,
as determined by the department, are eligible for an
additional $3,500 per year.
In addition, teachers who are National Board Certi-
fied are eligible to receive an annual 5-percent salary
increase, but this differential pay is not tied to high-
needs schools or subject-area shortages.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.166
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
Nevada Profile http://www.nbpts.org/resources/state_
local_information/NV
102 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 91
high-nEEds shortagE
Do states provide schools subjEct arEas
incentives to teach in
ess
ess
examples of Best Practice
ay
ay
high-needs schools or
iven
iven
ial p
ial p
ort
forg
forg
rent
rent
shortage subject areas?
upp
georgia supports differential pay by
Diffe
Diffe
loan
loan
no s
which teachers can earn additional
alabama
compensation by teaching certain alaska
subjects. The state is especially com- arizona
mended for its new compensation arkansas
strategy for math and science teachers, california
which moves teachers along the salary colorado
schedule rather than just providing a connecticut1
bonus or stipend. The state also sup- Delaware
ports differential pay initiatives to link District of columbia
compensation more closely with dis- Florida
Georgia
trict needs and to achieve a more eq-
hawaii
uitable distribution of teachers. Geor-
idaho
gia’s efforts to provide incentives for
illinois
National Board Certification teachers indiana
to work in high-needs schools are also iowa
noteworthy. kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland2
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota3
tennessee
texas
Figure 91
1 Connecticut offers mortgage assistance and
Utah
incentives to retired teachers. Vermont
2 Maryland offers tuition reimbursement for Virginia
retraining in the areas of mathematics and
science, if the teacher agrees to teach in the
Washington
public school system for at least two years West Virginia
following certification. It also offers a stipend
to alternative route candidates who agree to
Wisconsin
teach math, science or special education in a Wyoming
public school for at least three years.
3 South Dakota offers scholarships and signing 21 8 20 9 18
bonuses.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal F – Performance Pay
The state should support performance pay, but in a manner that recognizes its
infancy, appropriate uses and limitations.
goal components
Figure 92
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Performance Pay states’ rating for the goal.)
1 best Practice State 1. The state should support performance pay
Tennessee efforts, rewarding teachers for their effective-
ness in the classroom.
10 States Meet Goal
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, 2. The state should allow districts flexibility to
Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, define the criteria for performance pay; however,
Utah the state should ensure that districts’ criteria are
connected to evidence of student achievement.
3 States nearly Meet Goal
Alaska, California, Oklahoma
3. Any performance pay plan should allow for the
5 States Partly Meet Goal participation of all teachers, not just those with
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, students who take standardized tests.
Missouri
rationale
0 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
See appendix for detailed rationale.
32 States Do not Meet Goal
Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, n Performance pay is an important retention
District of Columbia, Georgia, strategy.
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, n States should set guidelines for districts to
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, ensure that plans are fair and sound.
Montana, Nebraska, nevada,
SuPPorting reSearch
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Research citations to support this goal are
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
104 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal F Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not support performance pay. The state does Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should
not have any policies in place that offer teachers additional consider awarding teachers for their effectiveness
compensation based on evidence of effectiveness. by supporting a performance pay plan, which can
be implemented at either the state or local level.
Nevada’s Equity Plan, revised in August 2008, includes
However, to ensure its success, the state is encouraged
pilot programs of performance pay for teachers as part
to proceed with caution when implementing such
of the plan to ensure recruitment and retention of expe-
a plan, as criteria must be developed with careful
rienced teachers. During the October 2008 Commission
consideration of the available data and subsequent
on Professional Standards in Education meeting, the
issues of fairness. The state may want to consider
commission expressed support for the “restoration and
piloting a performance pay plan in a select number of
continued funding of the pilot program for performance
school districts. This would provide an opportunity to
pay.” However, no performance pay pilot program has
discover and correct any limitation in available data or
been authorized in Nevada.
methodology before implementing the plan on a wider
scale. Of critical importance is that criteria thoughtfully
SuPPorting reSearch measure classroom performance and connect student
Nevada’s Equity Plan (Revised August 20, 2008) achievement to teacher effectiveness.
http://nde.doe.nv.gov/Accountability/NCLB/08_NV_
Equity_Plan-on_DOE.pdf
Nevada Dept of Education Commission on Professional nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Standards in Education Meeting Minutes Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
(October 17, 2008) http://nde.doe.nv.gov/
Commissions/PSC/mtgs/2008/2008-10-17_Minutes_PSC.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 105
Nevada
Figure 93
charactEristics
Do states support oF Program
pay
performance pay?
ent ence ance
ance
examples of Best Practice
ent
ers
stud to evid erform
evemof
ance pport
orm
each
pay
perf
pay nects p
perf s not su
all t
achi
tennessee requires differentiated pay plans,
orts
n to
orm
con
Doe
Supp
which may include performance pay. If
ope
alabama districts choose to include a performance
alaska1 pay component, it must be based on
arizona student achievement gains and be criterion-
arkansas based so that all teachers meeting the
california2 standard, not just those with students who
colorado
take standardized tests, are eligible for the
connecticut
reward. Although the state does not indicate
Delaware
specific incentive amounts, it requires that
District of columbia
Florida the award be significant enough to make a
Georgia difference to teachers.
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio1
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota1
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin Figure 93
Wyoming 1 Alaska, Ohio and South Dakota fund pilot programs.
2 California only offers incentives to teachers in under-
19 32 16 14 achieving schools.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal G – Pension Sustainability
The state should ensure that excessive resources are not committed to funding
teachers’ pension systems.
goal components
Figure 94
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Pension Sustainability
1. The state should ensure that its pension system 3 best Practice States
is financially sustainable. The system should not Delaware, New York, Wisconsin
have excessive unfunded liabilities or an inap-
propriately long amortization period.
4 States Meet Goal
District of Columbia, North Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee
2. Mandatory employee and employer contribu-
tion rates should not be unreasonably high. 11 States nearly Meet Goal
Excessively high employee contribution rates Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska,
reduce teachers’ paychecks, while excessive Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
employer contributions commit district Vermont, Washington, Wyoming
resources that could otherwise be spent on sala-
ries or incentives. 16 States Partly Meet Goal
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas,
rationale Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Missouri, Montana, nevada, New Jersey,
Virginia
n Many states’ pension systems are based on
promises they cannot afford to keep. 15 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
n Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
their careers by overcommitting employer
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio,
resources to retirement benefits.
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
SuPPorting reSearch West Virginia
Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations. 2 States Do not Meet Goal
Indiana, New Mexico
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 107
Nevada
area 4: Goal G Nevada analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
As of June 30, 2008, the most recent date for which an Nevada meets this goal in part. The state needs to
actuarial valuation is available, Nevada’s pension system ensure that its pension system is financially sustainable.
for teachers is 76.2 percent funded and calculates its The state would be better off if its system was over
annual contributions based on an amortization period 95 percent funded and had an amortization period
of 30 years. However, it is only meeting 96 percent of of 30 years or less to allow more protection during
its annual required contribution, meaning it would take financial downturns. However, Nevada should consider
the state more than 30 years to pay off its unfunded ways to improve its funding level without raising the
liabilities. Thus, Nevada’s amortization period does not contributions of school districts that participate in the
meet the regulatory requirement of 30 years, and its ERPaid plan.
funding level is too low, especially considering that it
was below the conventionally recommended minimum
funding level of 80 percent before the recent financial nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
market downturn. The state’s system is not financially Nevada was helpful in providing NCTQ with facts that
sustainable according to actuarial benchmarks. enhanced our analysis.
However, Nevada does not commit excessive resources In addition, Nevada asserted that NCTQ’s analysis uses
toward its teachers’ retirement system. Local districts a “conventional recommendation” of an 80 percent
choose between two funding options--the Employer funding level to indicate principles, without including
Pay Contribution Plan (ERPaid) and the Employee/ a citation. Nevada contended that according to the
Employer Contribution Plan (EES/ERS)--with most actuarial standards of practice, its system is well-
districts electing to participate in ERPaid. The current financed and on target to meet the overall funding
employer contribution to the ERPaid plan of 21.5 period of 26.5 years.
percent appears high. However, in place of a direct
employee contribution, teachers share exactly one- SuPPorting reSearch
half of the employer contribution rate through salary Nevada Revised Statute 286.421(3)
reduction or by foregoing an equivalent pay raise.
Teachers and employing school districts negotiate
which of the two cost-sharing mechanisms they will laSt Word
use in their contracts. Within the EES/ERS, teachers NCTQ’s use of “regulatory requirement” refers to the
and districts also share equally in the contribution, Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No.
each contributing 11.25 percent. The rates for both the 25, which describes the reporting regulations for defined
ERPaid and EES/ERS are reasonable rates, considering benefit plans, including using a maximum of a 30-year
that neither districts nor teachers make additional amortization period. The GASB statements regarding
contributions to Social Security. pension regulations are currently under review.
Nevada did not respond to repeated attempts to verify
SuPPorting reSearch
that its amortization period is in fact 26.5 years. The
http://www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/beneProgs.jsp
most recent financial report to which NCTQ had access
http://www.nvpers.org/public/whatsNew/contribRates.jsp and used as the basis for the analysis indicates that the
CAFR of the Public Employees’ Retirement System of state is not making the required annual contributions to
Nevada meet the 26-year period.
108 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 95
Pension glossary
accrued liability: The value of a pension plan’s promised benefits calculated by an actuary (actuarial valua-
tion), taking into account a set of investment and benefit assumptions to a certain date.
actuarial valuation: In a pension plan, this is the total amount needed to meet promised benefits. A set of
mathematical procedures is used to calculate the value of benefits to be paid, the funds available and the
annual contribution required.
amortization Period: The gradual elimination of a liability, such as a mortgage, in regular payments over a
specified period of time.
Benefit Formula: Formula used to calculate the amount teachers will receive each month after retirement.
The most common formula used is (years of service x final average salary x benefit multiplier). This amount is
divided by 12 to calculate monthly benefits.
Benefit multiplier: Multiplier used in the benefit formula. It, along with years of service, determines the total
percentage of final average salary that a teacher will receive in retirement benefits. In some plans, the multiplier
is not constant, but changes depending upon retirement age and/or years of service.
defined Benefit Plan: Pension plan that promises to pay a specified amount to each person who retires after
a set number of years of service. Employees contribute to them in some cases; in others, all contributions are
made by the employer.
defined contribution Plan: Pension plan in which the level of contributions is fixed at a certain level, while
benefits vary depending on the return from the investments. Employees make contributions into a tax-
deferred account, and employers may or may not make contributions. Defined contribution pension plans, unlike
defined benefit pension plans, give the employee options of where to invest the account, usually among stock,
bond and money market accounts.
lump-sum Withdrawal: Large payment of money received at one time instead of in periodic payments.
Teachers leaving a pension plan may receive a lump-sum distribution of the value of their pension.
Normal cost: The amount necessary to fund retirement benefits for one plan year for an individual or a whole
pension plan.
Pension Wealth: The net present value of a teacher’s expected lifetime retirement benefits.
Purchasing Time: A teacher may make additional contributions to a pension system to increase service credit.
Time may be purchased for a number of reasons, such as professional development leave, previous out-of-state
teaching experience, medical leaves of absence or military service.
Service credit/Years of Service: Accumulated period of time, in years or partial years, for which a teacher
earned compensation subject to contributions.
Supplemental retirement Plan: An optional plan to which teachers may voluntarily make tax-deferred con-
tributions in addition to their mandatory pension plans. Employees are usually able to choose their rate of
contribution up to a maximum set by the IRS; some employers also make contributions. These plans are gener-
ally in the form of 457 and 403(b) programs.
vesting: Right an employee gradually acquires by length of service to receive employer-contributed benefits,
such as payments from a pension fund.
Sources: Barron’s Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms, Seventh Edition; California State Teachers’
Retirement System http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Defined%20Benefit%20Program/glossary.aspx;
Economic Research Institute, http://www.eridlc.com/resources/index.cfm?fuseaction=resource.glossary
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 109
Nevada
Figure 96
Are state pension systems
ed
od
tion ear
financially sustainable?
fund
peri
rtiza 30 y
examples of Best Practice
0%
amoximum
ast 8
delaware, new york and Wisconsin provide finan-
at le
Ma
cially sustainable pension systems without committing
alabama
alaska
excessive resources. The systems in these states are
arizona fully funded, without requiring excessive contributions
arkansas from teachers or school districts.
california
colorado
connecticut
Figure 97
Delaware
District of columbia Are state pension systems financially
Florida sustainable?
Georgia
hawaii Nevada
idaho
illinois
indiana 24 27
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri yes no
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio1
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming1
Figure 96
31 37 1 According to the most recent valuations, Ohio and Wyoming are
79 percent funded.
Figure 99
How well funded are
state pension systems?
Figure 98
%
00%
w 60
Real Rate of Return
9%
4%
60-7
80-9
95-1
belo
The pension system funding levels presented in alabama
Goal 4-G are based on each state’s individual alaska
actuarial valuation, which use a series of varying arizona
assumptions. One of these assumptions con- arkansas
cerns rate of return, which greatly affects a sys- california
colorado
tem’s funding level. If investment returns fall
connecticut
short of assumptions, the fund will have a defi-
Delaware
cit; if returns are greater than expected, the fund
District of columbia
will have a surplus. Higher assumed rates involve Florida
more risk, while rates closer to inflation (typically Georgia
in the 3-5 percent range) are safer. hawaii
Most state pension funds assume a rate between idaho
illinois
7.5 percent and 8.25 percent. A state using a 7.5
indiana
percent rate will report a lower funding level that
iowa
if it had used 8.25 percent, even though its liabili-
kansas
ties remain the same. Many states report that kentucky
they do meet or exceed an eight percent rate of louisiana
return over the life of the plan. Maine
However, some economists argue that states’ Maryland
assumed rates of return are too high, and should Massachusetts
Michigans
instead be closer to four percent. They cau-
Minnesota
tion that the risk associated with states’ higher
Mississippi
rates is borne by taxpayers, with the result that
Missouri
tax rates rise to fund pension deficits. A rate Montana
closer to four percent would make the vast nebraska
majority of the nation’s pension systems less Nevada
than 50 percent funded. In light of the current new hampshire
market situation, the debate over the rate of new Jersey
return is particularly timely. With no current con- new Mexico
sensus by experts or policymakers, NCTQ used new york
states’ self-reported numbers rather than recal- north carolina
culate all funding levels based on a standard rate north Dakota
ohio
of return. Considering how many states’ systems
oklahoma
NCTQ found in questionable financial health
oregon
without using the lower rates some economists
Pennsylvania
prefer, it is clear this is an issue that demands rhode island
policymakers’ attention. South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
5 17 18 11
Figure 101
What are the current employer1 contribution rates to
state pension systems?
Figure 100
employer contribution rate
What is a reasonable rate for pension Social Security (+6.2%)
contributions? 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
alabama
n 4-7 percent each for teachers and districts in alaska
states participating in Social Security arizona
n 10-13 percent each for teachers and districts arkansas
in states not participating in Social Security california
colorado
Analysts generally agree that workers in their connecticut
20’s with no previous retirement savings should Delaware
save, in addition to Social Security contributions, District of columbia
about 10-15 percent of their gross income in Florida
Georgia2
order to be able to live during retirement on 80
hawaii
percent of the salary they were earning when
idaho
they retired. While the recommended savings
illinois
rate varies with age and existing retirement sav- indiana
ings, NCTQ has used this 10-15 percent bench- iowa
mark as a reasonable rate for its analyses. To kansas
achieve a total savings of 10-15 percent, teacher kentucky
and employer contributions should each be in louisiana
the range of 4-7 percent. In states where teach- Maine
ers do not participate in Social Security, the total Maryland
recommended retirement savings (teacher plus Massachusetts
employer contributions) is about 12 percent high- Michigan
Minnesota
er, to compensate for the fact that these teachers
Mississippi
will not have Social Security income when they
Missouri
retire. In order to achieve the appropriate level of
Montana
total savings, teacher and employer contributions nebraska
in these states should each be in the range of 10- Nevada
13 percent. new hampshire
new Jersey
Sources: new Mexico
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/plan- new york
ning/retirement/saving/strategies?cmsid=P- north carolina
990053&lvl1=planning&lvl2=retirement& north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/planningeduca-
oregon
tion/retirement/PEdRetInvHowMuchToSaveContent.
Pennsylvania
jsp#early rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Figure 101 West Virginia3
1 The employer contribution rate includes the contributions of both school Wisconsin
districts and state governments, where appropriate.
Wyoming
2 Some school districts in Georgia do not contribute to Social Security.
3 The employer contribution to the defined benefit plan is 15 percent for
employees hired prior to July 1, 2005.
Figure 103
How much do state pension systems require teachers
Figure 102
to contribute?
Do states require excessive contributions to employee contribution rate
their pension systems? Social Security (+6.2%)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Nevada alabama
26 alaska
arizona
25 arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware1
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
yes no hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan2
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york3
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Figure 103 Washington4
1 There is no employee contribution for income equal to and below $6,000. West Virginia
2 The rate is 3.4 percent of pay up to $15,000. Wisconsin
3 The rate is 3 percent until 10 years of service, after which there is no Wyoming
employee contribution.
4 The rate is 4.26 percent for the defined benefit plan. The rate varies for
the defined contribution plan with a minimum of 5 percent.
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal h – Pension Flexibility
The state should ensure that pension systems are portable,
flexible and fair to all teachers.
goal components
Figure 104
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Pension Flexibility states’ rating for the goal.)
0 best Practice States 1. Participants in the state’s pension system should
have the option of a fully portable pension
2 States Meet Goal system as their primary pension plan. States
Alaska, South Dakota
may provide this through a defined contribution
4 States nearly Meet Goal plan or a defined benefit plan that is formatted
California, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia similar to a cash balance plan.
19 States Partly Meet Goal 2. Participants in the state’s pension system
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, should be vested no later than the third year of
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, employment.
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, 3. Defined benefit plans should offer the option of
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming a lump-sum rollover to a personal retirement
account upon employment termination. This
14 States Meet a Small Part of Goal option at minimum should include employee
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,
contributions and accrued interest at a fair
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
interest rate. In addition, withdrawal options from
Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
either defined benefit or defined contribution
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
plans should include funds contributed by the
Tennessee
employer.
12 States Do not Meet Goal
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, 4. Defined benefit plans should allow participants
Massachusetts, Montana, nevada, to purchase time for unlimited previous teaching
New Hampshire, New Mexico, experience at the time of employment. Teachers
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, should also be allowed to purchase time for all
West Virginia official leaves of absence, such as maternity and
paternity leave.
rationale
See appendix for detailed rationale.
n Anachronistic features of teacher pension plans
disadvantage teachers early in their careers.
SuPPorting reSearch
Research citations to support this goal are available
at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
114 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal h Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS Because the vast majority of teachers in Nevada
Nevada does not offer a fully portable pension plan, such are enrolled in the ERPaid plan and not making
as a defined contribution plan, as an option for a teacher’s contributions, they may not withdraw any funds if they
mandatory pension plan. The only mandatory plan leave the state. Vested teachers will receive their benefit
available to a teacher is a defined benefit plan. Because payments later, but nonvested teachers who leave
teachers in Nevada do not participate in Social Security, Nevada will have no retirement savings at all because
defined benefit plans could be a suitable option among they do not participate in Social Security. In addition,
multiple plans. However, as the sole option, defined salary increases may have been diminished during their
benefit plans severely disadvantage mobile teachers and tenure to pay for the pension system.
those who enter the profession later in life.
The ability to purchase time is important because
Nevada offers two funding methods for its defined benefit defined benefit plans’ retirement eligibility and benefit
plan: the Employer Pay Contribution Plan (ERPaid) and payments are often tied to the number of years a teacher
the Employee/Employer Contribution Plan (EES/ERS). has worked. Nevada’s plan allows vested teachers to
Local districts choose between the two options, with purchase time up to five years for any reason. This
most districts electing to participate in ERPaid. provision is a disadvantage to teachers who move to
Vesting affects defined benefit plans’ portability and Nevada with more than five years of teaching experience.
flexibility because it guarantees a teacher’s eligibility to
receive lifetime monthly benefit payments and be fully SuPPorting reSearch
entitled to all other additional benefits. When vested Summary Plan Description for Regular Members http://
teachers stop working in a particular system, they www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/beneProgs.jsp
may leave their funds in the system and later receive
benefits when they reach the defined retirement age, or
they may withdraw some or all of the funds according recoMMendation
to the plan’s guidelines. Nonvested teachers may only Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should at
withdraw funds; they may not receive retirement least offer teachers the option of a fully portable pen-
benefits. Nevada’s defined benefit plan does not vest sion plan, such as a defined contribution plan. The por-
until year five. tability of such plans is attractive to an increasingly mo-
Only teachers in the EES/ERS plan may withdraw their bile teacher workforce. If Nevada maintains its defined
funds when they stop teaching in Nevada, and they may benefit option, it should also consider allowing vesting
only withdraw their contributions plus interest. This after year three instead of year five.
means that teachers who withdraw their funds accrue Because purchasing time can be structured as gener-
no benefits beyond what they would have earned had ally cost neutral to the fund, teachers should be allowed
they simply put their contributions in basic savings to transfer unlimited time from previous teaching
accounts. Furthermore, teachers who remain in the field experience, and this purchase should be allowed on
of education but enter another pension plan (such as the first day of employment in the new school system.
in another state) will find it difficult to purchase the The state’s plan should also allow teachers to purchase
time equivalent to their prior employment in the new time, without restrictions, for leaves of absence such as
system because they are not entitled to any employer parental leave, and payment should be allowed at the
contribution. time of leave without requiring interest.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 115
Nevada
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS laSt Word
Nevada stated that its system provides the opportunity The option of being able to choose a defined contribu-
for all members to purchase up to five years of service tion plan is inherently better than being mandated into
credit. This is a portability feature that is designed to be a defined benefit plan. While defined contribution plans
applied to all members regardless of profession. In addi- are not without their risks, the option allows teachers to
tion, the system is a multiple employer plan that allows decide for themselves whether or not they find those risks
complete portability between school districts within acceptable. As discussed in the rationale for this goal, states
the state and the university system, as well as other have a responsibility to educate their employees on their
educational or public institutions within Nevada. options and how to invest at different stages in life.
Nevada also pointed out that its system is one defined Experiences in other states show that when offered a
benefit pension system with two contribution plans, choice between a defined benefit and defined contribu-
not two separate defined contribution pension plans. tion plan, at least some of the employees choose the
(Further detail is provided in Goal 4-G.) defined benefit plan. The option of that plan may have
Concerning the recommendation that Nevada move to helped recruit them to the job. For example, in Florida,
a defined contribution plan for increased portability for 25 percent of non-state employees (this includes coun-
teachers, the state asserted that this recommendation ty employees, school board members, etc.; the state
fails to recognize the importance of the defined ben- does not specifically separate out teachers) with fewer
efit plan as an incentive to teachers. There have been than five years of experience elect to participate in the
several national studies concluding that overall income defined contribution plan. Florida’s defined contribution
security in retirement is a desired goal of individuals plan was only created in 2002, so the cohort with less
entering the public workforce (including teachers). This than five years is a good representation of what por-
is supported by the real world examples of states where tion of members chose defined contribution when pro-
teachers (as well as other public workers) have had an vided with educational materials. Additionally, in some
opportunity to choose between a defined benefit and other states that offer a choice, the defined benefit plan
a defined contribution approach to retirement security remains the default plan, perhaps inflating estimates of
(see Florida, West Virginia and Ohio). Overwhelmingly, “preference” for these plans’ membership. When West
when provided a choice, the majority of public workers Virginia allowed teachers to vote for a one-time switch
choose the defined benefit approach, thus supporting from their current defined contribution accounts to a
the concept that retirement income security is of real defined benefit formula, more than 20 percent did not
value to these professionals. Matching the incentives vote to switch, showing again that at least a sizeable por-
offered to the desires of the population covered under tion of teachers prefer a defined contribution program.
the benefits policy of the employer enhances stability Even if most teachers would opt for a defined benefit
of the workforce and ultimately provides a higher level plan, these plans disadvantage teachers who move into
of service to the public. or out of the state, or enter teaching later in life, both
of which are becoming increasingly more common. De-
fined contribution plans may provide less than defined
benefit plans to those who spend their entire careers in
one system, but the payouts to career teachers are at
the expense of mobile teachers, career switchers and
taxpayers.
Portability within Nevada is valuable, but portability
across the nation is still needed for many individuals.
116 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 105
on
plan r
tion fit o
buti
enta d co with
What type of pension
nly
ribu bene
l pla ntri
lem efine plan
lan o
n
utio
systems do states offer
cont ned
n
suppional d enefit
fit p
only ntrib
teachers?
ned defi
bene
lan 1
planfined co
opt fined b
defioice of
rid p
ned
De
hyb
Defi
De
ch
alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
california 2
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia
hawaii
idaho
illinois
indiana 2
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
3
ohio
oklahoma
oregon 2
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina 2
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
1 A hybrid plan has components of both
Washington 4
a defined benefit plan and a defined
West Virginia contribution plan.
Wisconsin 2 Supplemental defined contribution
plan also offered.
Wyoming
3 Ohio also offers the option of a hybrid plan.
30 13 4 3 1 4 Washington offers a choice between a
defined benefit or hybrid plan.
examples of Best Practice Figure 106
What type of pension systems do states
alaska provides a fair and flexible defined contri- offer teachers?
bution pension plan for all teachers. This plan is also Nevada
highly portable, as teachers are entitled to 100 per-
cent of employer contributions after five years of
service. South dakota’s defined benefit plan has some 30
creative provisions, which makes it more like a defined
contribution plan. Most notably, teachers are able to
withdraw 100 percent of their employer contribu- 13
tions after three years of service. In addition, florida,
ohio and South carolina are noteworthy for offering
teachers a choice between a defined benefit plan and a 4 3
defined contribution plan. 1
Defined Defined hybrid choice of Defined
benefit benefit plan plan1 defined contribution
plan only with defined benefit or plan only
contribution defined
supplemental contribution
plan plan
1 A hybrid plan has components of both a defined benefit plan and a
defined contribution plan
118 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 108
How many years before
Figure 107 teachers vest?
less
How many years before teachers vest?
ars
ars
r
ars o
5 ye
9 ye
ears
10 y
3 ye
Nevada
4 to
6 to
alabama
alaska
arizona
37 arkansas
california1
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
9 Florida2
Georgia
3 2 hawaii
idaho
illinois
3 years 4 to 5 6 to 9 10 years indiana
or less years years
iowa
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
new hampshire
new Jersey
new Mexico
new york
north carolina
north Dakota
ohio3
oklahoma
oregon4
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina5
Figure 108
1 California offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in South Dakota
the defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit tennessee
component after five years.
texas
2 Florida’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year six; teachers vest
in the state’s defined contribution plan after one year. Utah
3 Ohio’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five; teachers vest in Vermont
the state’s defined contribution plan after one year. Virginia
4 Oregon offers a hybrid plan in which teachers vest immediately in the Washington6
defined contribution component and vest in the defined benefit
component after five years. West Virginia
5 South Carolina’s defined benefit plan does not vest until year five; Wisconsin
teachers vest immediately in the state’s defined contribution plan. Wyoming
6 Based on Washington’s Plan 2. The state also offers a hybrid plan in
which teachers vest immediately in the defined contribution component 3 37 2 9
and vest in the defined benefit component after 10 years.
Figure 109
n
utio
inte er
rest
rest
What funds do states permit
tion e em ion
tion yer on
plus ploy
tion
ntrib
ribu emplo tributi
tribu f th but
inte
n
teachers to withdraw from
rest ribu
tion ow
cond part o contri
n co
plus
full con
inte n cont
ribu their
their defined benefit plans if
r ow
an r own
andeir own
conts than
r ow
they leave after five years? 1
thei
thei
thei
only
th
cont
les
plus
alabama
alaska2
arizona
arkansas
california
colorado
connecticut
Delaware
District of columbia
1 States’ withdrawal policies may vary
depending on teachers’ years of service. Florida3
Year five is used as a common point of Georgia
comparison.
hawaii
2 As of July 1, 2006, Alaska only offers a de-
fined contribution plan to new members, idaho
which allows teachers leaving the system illinois
after five years to withdraw 100 percent
of the employer contribution. indiana4
3 Since Florida teachers do not contribute iowa
to the defined benefit plan, the only funds kansas
participants could withdraw upon leaving
are those made for special circumstances kentucky
such as purchasing time. Florida also has louisiana
a defined contribution plan, which allows
teachers with at least one year of service Maine
who are leaving the system to withdraw Maryland
100 percent of the employer contribution.
Massachusetts
4 Indiana teachers transfering to another
governmental retirement plan may also Michigan
withdraw the amount necessary to pur- Minnesota
chase creditable service in the new plan.
Mississippi
5 Most teachers in Nevada fund the system
through salary reductions or forgoing pay Missouri
raises, and thus do not have direct contri- Montana
butions to withdraw. The small minority
that are in a contributory system may nebraska
withdraw their contributions plus interest. Nevada5
6 Ohio has two other pension plans. Ohio’s new hampshire
defined contribution plan allows teachers
with at least one year of service who new Jersey
are leaving the system to withdraw 100 new Mexico
percent of the employer contribution.
Exiting teachers with at least five years new york
of experience in Ohio’s combination plan north carolina
may withdraw their employee-funded
defined contribution component, but north Dakota
must wait until age 50 to withdraw funds ohio6
from the employer-funded defined benefit
component. oklahoma
7 Oregon only has a hybrid retirement plan, oregon7
which allows exiting teachers to withdraw Pennsylvania
their contributions plus earnings from
their defined contribution component; rhode island
they still receive the employer-funded South carolina8
defined benefit payments at retirement age.
South Dakota
8 South Carolina also has a defined
contribution plan, which allows exiting tennessee
teachers to withdraw 100 percent of their texas
contributions and employer contributions,
plus interest. Utah9
9 Since Utah teachers do not contribute to Vermont
the defined benefit plan, the only funds Virginia
participants could withdraw upon leaving
are those made for special circumstances Washington10
such as purchasing time. West Virginia
10 Washington also has a hybrid plan, which Wisconsin
allows exiting teachers to withdraw their
contributions plus earnings from their Wyoming
defined contribution component; they
still receive the employer-funded defined 3 5 35 5 2
benefit payments at retirement age.
food for thought Figure 110
Do states permit teachers to purchase time
West virginia’s cautionary Tale for previous teaching experience? 1
Education and individual retirement planning advice Nevada
is a critical aspect of any state’s pension plan, as evi-
denced by the tribulations of West Virginia’s teacher
pension system. In 1991, facing financial troubles, 30
West Virginia closed its defined benefit Teachers’
Retirement System (TRS) to new members and
opened the Teachers’ Defined Contribution plan (TDC). 14
However, after widespread dissatisfaction with TDC
account balances, it was closed to new members in 6
2005, and TRS was reopened. In 2008, the state leg-
islature gave TDC participants a one-time option to
switch their account balances from TDC to TRS in no limited Unlimited
order to receive retirement payments according to the purchase purchase purchase
defined benefit formula. Over 78 percent of teachers permitted2 permitted permitted3
elected to transfer.
1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
While these events may appear to argue against time does not apply.
states’ offering defined contribution plans, West 2 Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Tennessee.
Virginia’s experience should be viewed as a caution- 3 Arizona, California, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina,
ary tale of the need for proper investment educa- South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.
tion. The implementation of the defined contribution
plan was not handled well. In fact, some teachers
believe they were so poorly advised that they have
Figure 111
filed suit against the investment firm managing the
plan. About three-fourths of teachers invested sole- Do states permit teachers to purchase time
ly in low-yield, low-risk annuities that performed
for leaves of absence? 1
only slightly better than some savings accounts. For Nevada
example, the Associated Press found that from May
2005 to May 2008, these annuities provided only their 18
guaranteed 4.5 percent annual return. Over this same
19 13
time period, the S&P 500 had an average rate of return
of over 7 percent per year.
Defined contribution plans provide teachers flexibil-
ity in their retirement savings, but such plans are not
without risk. States have a responsibility to educate no limited Unlimited
teachers on their financial options and how to invest at purchase purchase purchase
permitted2 permitted permitted3
different stages in life.
1 Alaska only offers a defined contribution plan; purchase of
time does not apply.
2 Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
and Wisconsin.
3 Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Carolina and Utah.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 121
Nevada
area 4: retaining effective Teachers
Goal i – Pension neutrality
The state should ensure that pension systems are neutral, uniformly increasing
pension wealth with each additional year of work.
goal components
Figure 112
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Pension Neutrality states’ rating for the goal.)
1. The formula that determines pension benefits
1 best Practice State
should be neutral to the number of years worked.
Alaska
It should not have a multiplier that increases
1 State Meets Goal with years of service or longevity bonuses.
Minnesota
2. The formula for determining benefits should
7 States nearly Meet Goal preserve incentives for teachers to continue
Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, working until conventional retirement ages.
Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin Eligibility for retirement benefits should be
based on age and not years of service.
29 States Partly Meet Goal
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, rationale
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, nevada, See appendix for detailed rationale.
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, n It is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, does not accumulate in a uniform way.
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia n Pension systems affect when teachers decide
to retire as they look to maximize their pension
1 State Meets a Small Part of Goal wealth.
Pennsylvania
SuPPorting reSearch
12 States Do not Meet Goal Research citations to support this goal are available
Arizona, California, Connecticut, at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
District of Columbia, Iowa, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Rhode Island, Wyoming
122 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 4: Goal i Nevada analysis
State Partly Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada’s pension system is based on a benefit formula Nevada meets this goal in part. Although the state is
that is not neutral, meaning that each year of work commended for using a constant benefit multiplier, it
does not accrue pension wealth in a uniform way until should consider no longer basing retirement eligibility
members reach Social Security retirement age. on years of service. This change would result in a pension
To qualify as neutral, a pension formula must not plan that treats all teachers more equitably, regardless
only utilize a constant benefit multiplier to determine of where they are in their careers.
retired teachers’ benefits, but it must also rely on an
eligibility calendar based on age, rather than years of
service. In most defined benefit plans, pension wealth nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
peaks for teachers the year they become eligible for The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada
retirement, and then it declines every year they work had no comment on this goal.
beyond eligibility. Plans that base retirement on years
of service create unnecessary peaks, and plans that
allow a low retirement age create incentives to retire
Figure 113
early. Therefore, plans that base retirement on an age
in line with Social Security are likely to create the most Does pension wealth in Nevada
uniform accrual of wealth. accumulate uniformly for all teachers?
Nevada’s pension plan utilizes a constant benefit
benefit formula is determined by a
multiplier of 2.5 percent for service prior to July 1,
multiplier that does not change based yeS
2001, and a multiplier of 2.67 percent after that date,
on years of service
regardless of years of service; however, teachers may
retire before standard retirement age based on years of retirement eligibility is based on age,
service without a reduction in benefits. Teachers with 30 not years of service1 no
years of service may retire at any age, and those with 10
years of service may retire at age 60, while other vested
1 This only refers to determining retirement eligibility, not retirement benefits.
teachers may not retire until age 65. Therefore, teachers
who begin their careers at age 22 can reach 30 years of
service by age 52, entitling them to 13 additional years
of unreduced retirement benefits beyond what other
teachers would receive who may not retire until age 65.
These provisions may encourage effective teachers to
retire earlier than they might otherwise, and they fail to
treat equally those teachers who enter the system at a
later age and give the same amount of service.
SuPPorting reSearch
http://www.nvpers.org/public/beneProgs/regPlan.pdf
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 123
Nevada
Figure 114
duce ay r ed te at a
ntil the tims paid
ng
65 e of
d be eceiv achi
unre ge 22 m o start t age th
How much do states pay
t
eme from enefi
nefi e
at a cher wh iremen
for each teacher that
retir teacher nt in b
age
ts
examples of Best Practice
retires with unreduced
tea iest ret
per al amou
nt u
benefits at an early age?1
earl
alaska offers a defined contribution pension plan
tot
that is neutral, with pension wealth accumulating in
alaska2 – – an equal way for all teachers for each year of work.
Minnesota3 $0 65
Minnesota offers a defined benefit plan with a formula
Washington $0 65
multiplier that does not change relative to years of ser-
Maine $258,357 62
california $310,028 62 vice and does not allow unreduced benefits for retirees
indiana $317,728 55 below age 65.
new hampshire $321,326 60
kansas $337,385 60
oregon $361,536 58
Figure 115
Wisconsin $416,007 57
rhode island $430,013 59 What kind of multiplier do states use to
texas $443,421 60 calculate retirement benefits?1
South Dakota $449,151 55 Nevada
Michigan $468,590 52
tennessee $499,973 52
new york $517,816 55
connecticut $520,009 57 35
Vermont $520,655 52
new Jersey $525,117 55
Virginia $531,068 52
iowa $551,428 55
idaho $551,743 56 15
north Dakota $551,743 56
oklahoma $551,743 56
Florida $557,112 52
Maryland $562,308 52
north carolina $568,555 52
illinois $572,010 57 changes constant
South carolina $577,142 50 based on
years of
hawaii $577,687 55 service2
nebraska $577,687 55
West Virginia $577,687 55 Figure 115
Delaware $577,927 52 1 Alaska has a defined contribution plan, which does not have a
District of columbia $585,737 52 benefit multiplier.
Massachusetts4 $594,296 57 2 Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire,
Montana $600,768 47 New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wyoming.
Mississippi $621,861 47
Georgia $624,786 52
Utah $624,786 52
alabama $625,747 47
Pennsylvania $650,011 57
Wyoming $655,506 54 Figure 114
1 All calculations are based on a teacher who starts teaching at age 22,
arkansas $681,789 50 earns a starting salary of $35,000 that increases 3 percent per year, and
ohio5 $687,265 52 retires at the age when he or she is first eligible for unreduced benefits.
The calculations use states’ current benefit formulas and do not include
arizona $694,622 51 cost of living increases. The final average salary was calculated as the
colorado $722,108 55 average of the highest three years of salary, even though a few states
may vary from that standard. Age 65 was used as the point of comparison
new Mexico $730,686 47 for standard retirement age because it is the miminum eligibility age for
louisiana $780,983 52 unreduced Social Security benefits.
Missouri $780,983 52 2 Does not apply to Alaska’s defined contribution plan.
kentucky $791,679 49 3 Minnesota provides unreduced retirement benefits at the age of full
Social Security benefits or age 66, whichever comes first.
Nevada $834,090 52 4 Massachusetts’s formula has many options for retirement. A teacher
with 35 years of experience at age 57 would reach the maximum benefit.
5 Applies only to Ohio’s defined benefit plan.
area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal a – licensure loopholes
The state should close loopholes that allow teachers who have not met licensure
requirements to continue teaching.
goal components
Figure 116
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring on Closing Licensure
Loopholes
1. Under no circumstances should a state award
a standard license to a teacher who has not 3 best Practice States
Colorado, Mississippi, New Jersey
passed all required licensing tests.
6 States Meet Goal
2. If a state finds it necessary to confer condi- Arizona, Illinois, nevada, New Mexico,
tional or provisional licenses under limited and South Carolina, Virginia
exceptional circumstances to teachers who have
not passed the required tests, the state should 9 States nearly Meet Goal
ensure that requirements are met within one Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
year. District of Columbia, Georgia, Massachusetts,
North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia
rationale
2 States Partly Meet Goal
See appendix for detailed rationale. Iowa, Wyoming
n Teachers who have not passed licensing tests
may place students at risk.
3 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
Michigan, Vermont, Wisconsin
SuPPorting reSearch
28 States Do not Meet Goal
Research citations to support this goal are
Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 125
Nevada
area 5: Goal a Nevada analysis
State Meets Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada allows some new teachers who have not passed Nevada meets this goal. The state is commended for
state licensing tests to teach under a provisional nonre- requiring that all teachers of core academic areas meet
newable license, which is valid for three years. However, all licensure requirements as of July 1, 2010.
state regulations indicate that as of July 1, 2010, the
superintendent will no longer be allowed to issue pro-
visional nonrenewable licenses to those candidates who nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
have not passed required subject-matter tests and who Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
apply for the following certificates: elementary license;
special teaching license in music, art or special education;
or secondary license in art, biological science, chemistry,
English, French, general science, history, mathematics,
music, physical science, reading, social studies, Spanish,
speech and drama.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 391.056
126 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 118
How long can new
teachers practice without
nspe ore
examples of Best Practice
d)
passing licensing tests?
(or u ars or m
cifie
ars
ar
ral
1 ye
2 ye
efer
colorado, Mississippi and new jersey require that all
o
o
3 ye
no d
Up t
Up t
new teachers must pass all required subject-matter
alabama
tests as a condition of initial licensure. alaska
arizona
arkansas
Figure 117 california
colorado
Do states still award emergency licenses?1
connecticut
no emergency or Delaware
provisional licenses2 renewable emergency District of columbia
or provisional licenses3 Florida
Georgia
hawaii
Nevada idaho
9 16 illinois
indiana
iowa1
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
24 Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
nonrenewable Missouri
emergency or Montana2
provisional licenses
nebraska2
Nevada3
1 Not applicable to Montana or Nebraska, which do not require
subject-matter testing. new hampshire
2 Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, new Jersey
South Carolina, Virginia new Mexico
3 Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, new york
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin north carolina
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Figure 118 West Virginia
1 Iowa only requires subject-matter testing for elementary teachers.
Wisconsin
2 Montana and Nebraska do not currently require licensing tests.
Wyoming4
3 Nevada has no deferral as of 2010.
4 Wyoming only requires subject-matter testing for elementary and 9 11 8 21
social studies teachers.
area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal b – Unsatisfactory evaluations
The state should articulate consequences for teachers with unsatisfactory
evaluations, including specifying that teachers with multiple unsatisfactory
evaluations are eligible for dismissal.
goal components
Figure 119
(The factors considered in determining the
How States are Faring on Consequences for states’ rating for the goal.)
Unsatisfactory Evaluations
1. The state should require that all teachers who
have received a single unsatisfactory evaluation
2 best Practice States
be placed on an improvement plan -- whether
Illinois, Oklahoma
or not they have tenure.
6 States Meet Goal
Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, 2. The state should require that all teachers who
New Mexico, Washington receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evalua-
tions or two unsatisfactory evaluations within
6 States nearly Meet Goal five years be formally eligible for dismissal --
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, whether or not they have tenure.
South Carolina, Texas
13 States Partly Meet Goal rationale
Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, See appendix for detailed rationale.
Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, n Negative evaluations should have meaningful
Utah, West Virginia consequences.
Employment status should not determine the
1 State Meets a Small Part of Goal
n
Arizona consequences of a negative evaluation.
SuPPorting reSearch
23 States Do not Meet Goal
District of Columbia, Idaho, Indiana, Research citations to support this goal are
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
128 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
area 5: Goal b Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
Nevada does not have a policy regarding teachers who Nevada does not meet this goal. The state should adopt a
receive unsatisfactory evaluations. policy whereby all teachers who receive a single unsatis-
factory evaluation are placed on a structured improvement
SuPPorting reSearch plan. Teachers who receive two consecutive, unsatisfactory
NRS 391.3125 evaluations or have two unsatisfactory evaluations within
five years should be formally eligible for dismissal, regard-
less of whether they have tenure.
nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 129
Nevada
Figure 120
ings
nces
ting
ry ra a
ctor r
y rat
tisfa l afte
What are the consequences
facto fter
eque
satis lan a
unsa issa
for teachers who receive
cons
iple dism
le un nt p
unsatisfactory evaluations? examples of Best Practice
lated
singproveme
multible for
rticu
illinois and oklahoma both require that teachers
no a
elig
im
who receive unsatisfactory evaluations be placed on
alabama
alaska
improvement plans. Teachers in Illinois are then
arizona evaluated three times during a 90-day remediation
arkansas period and are eligible for dismissal if performance
california remains unsatisfactory. Oklahoma’s improvement plan
colorado may not exceed two months, and if performance does
connecticut not improve during that time, teachers are eligible for
Delaware dismissal.
District of columbia
Florida
Georgia Figure 121
hawaii1
idaho Do states specify that all teachers with
illinois
multiple unsatisfactory evaluations are eligible
for dismissal?
indiana
Nevada
iowa
kansas
kentucky2 40
louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota 11
Mississippi3
Missouri
Montana
nebraska
Nevada
yes1 no
new hampshire
new Jersey 1 Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana,
new Mexico New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington
new york
north carolina4
north Dakota
ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina5
South Dakota
tennessee
texas Figure 120
1 Any teacher with an unsatisfactory evaluation is immediately dismissed.
Utah
2 Kentucky does require multiple observations the year following an
Vermont unsatisfactory evaluation.
Virginia6 3 Improvement plans are only used for teachers in identified “Priority
Washington Schools.” Those same teachers are also eligible for dismissal for multiple
unsatisfactory evaluations.
West Virginia
4 Only teachers in low performing schools can be dismissed after just one
Wisconsin negative rating.
Wyoming 5 Only teachers on annual contracts are eligible for dismissal after
unsatisfactory evaluations.
25 13 22 6 Only probationary teachers can be dismissed following an unsatisfactory
evaluation.
area 5: exiting ineffective Teachers
Goal c – Dismissal for Poor Performance
The state should ensure that the process for terminating ineffective teachers is
expedient and fair to all parties.
goal components
Figure 122
(The factors considered in determining the
states’ rating for the goal.)
How States are Faring in Dismissal for Poor
Performance
1. A teacher who is terminated for poor perfor-
mance should have an opportunity to appeal. In
0 best Practice States
the interest of both the teacher and the school
district, the state should ensure this appeal 0 States Meet Goal
occurs within a reasonable time frame.
0 States nearly Meet Goal
2. The state should distinguish the process and
accompanying due process rights for teachers 3 States Partly Meet Goal
dismissed for classroom ineffectiveness from Florida, New Hampshire, Wisconsin
the process and accompanying due process
rights for teachers dismissed or facing license
4 States Meet a Small Part of Goal
District of Columbia, Louisiana, New York,
revocation for felony or morality violations or
North Dakota
dereliction of duties.
44 States Do not Meet Goal
rationale Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
See appendix for detailed rationale. Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
n States need to be explicit that teacher ineffec- Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
tiveness is grounds for dismissal. Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
n Due process must be efficient and expedited. nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
n Decisions about teachers should be made by North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
those with educational expertise. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
SuPPorting reSearch
Vermont, Virginia, Washington,West Virginia,
Research citations to support this goal are Wyoming
available at www.nctq.org/stpy/citations.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 131
Nevada
area 5: Goal c Nevada analysis
State Does not Meet Goal
analySiS recoMMendation
In Nevada, tenured teachers who are terminated for poor Nevada does not meet this goal. Although the state should
performance may appeal multiple times. After receiving provide tenured teachers an opportunity to appeal district
written notice of dismissal, the teacher has 10 days to decisions to terminate their contracts, multiple appeals
file a request for a hearing. The teacher may then file an should not be permitted, and such an appeal should not be
additional appeal with the district court. The state does made in a court of law but before a panel of educators. It
not specify the time frame for this appeal. is in the best interest of both the teacher and the district
Regrettably, the state also does not distinguish its due that a conclusion be reached in a reasonable time frame.
process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per- Prolonged appeals tax limited resources and may dissuade
formance from those facing license revocation for der- districts from attempting to terminate ineffective teachers.
eliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations. The The state should also distinguish the process for dismissing
process is the same regardless of the grounds for cancel- ineffective teachers from dismissal or license revocation
lation, which include inefficiency, immorality, unprofes- for dereliction of duty or felony and/or morality violations.
sional conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, physi- While teachers should have due process for any termina-
cal or mental incapacity, felony conviction, inadequate tion, it is important to differentiate between poor perfor-
performance, advocating overthrow of the government mance and issues with far-reaching consequences that
and dishonesty. could permanently impact a teacher’s right to practice.
SuPPorting reSearch
Nevada Revised Statutes 391.312, -317, -3194 nevada reSPonSe to analySiS
Nevada recognized the factual accuracy of our analysis.
132 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Figure 124
Do states distinguish due
g
ess essin
process for dismissal for
examples of Best Practice
proc addr
classroom ineffectiveness
due policy
from felony or morality
Unfortunately, no state has an exemplary policy that violations?
no
yes
no
NCTQ can highlight as “best practice” in this area. Only
alabama
florida, new hampshire and Wisconsin ensure that
alaska
their processes for terminating ineffective teachers
arizona
should be concluded within a reasonable time frame. arkansas
Regrettably, even these states do not distinguish due california
process rights for teachers dismissed for ineffective per- colorado
formance from those facing license revocation for der- connecticut
eliction of duties, or felony and/or morality violations. Delaware
District of columbia
Florida
Figure 123 Georgia
hawaii
Do states allow multiple appeals of teacher idaho
dismissals? illinois
indiana
Nevada
iowa
kansas
kentucky
38 louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
8 Missouri
5 Montana
nebraska
Nevada
yes no1 no new hampshire
(or unclear) new Jersey
policy
addressing new Mexico
appeals2 new york
north carolina
1 District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin north Dakota
2 Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, Utah ohio
oklahoma
oregon
Pennsylvania
rhode island
South carolina
South Dakota
tennessee
texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1 47 3
aPPeNdiX
appendix focus exclusively on astronomy and fail to give a teacher can-
didate an understanding of the basic concepts of physics. Too
few states’ requirements distinguish between the value gained
area 1: goal a from a survey course in American history, such as “From Colonial
Times to the Civil War,” and an American history course such as
Admission into Preparation Programs “Woody Guthrie and Folk Narrative in the Great Depression.”
rationale In addition to the common-sense notion that teachers ought
The most appropriate time for assessing basic skills is to know the subjects they teach, research supports the benefits
at program entry. to be gained by teachers being broadly educated. Teachers who
are more literate--who possess richer vocabularies--are more
Basic skills tests were not intended to be licensing tests, but
likely to be effective. In fact, of all the measurable attributes of
rather to be used at the point of admission into a teacher prepa-
a teacher, teacher literacy correlates most consistently with stu-
ration program. These tests generally assess middle school-level
dent achievement gains. Some states still require that elemen-
skills, and states should use them as a minimal screening mecha-
tary teacher candidates major in elementary education, with no
nism to ensure that teacher preparation programs do not admit
expectation that they be broadly educated. Others have regula-
anyone who is not prepared to do college-level work. Admitting
tory language that effectively requires the completion of educa-
prospective teachers who have not passed these tests may re-
tion coursework instead of liberal arts coursework by mandat-
sult in programs devoting limited time to basic skill remediation
ing only teaching methods courses in subject areas without also
rather than preparation for the classroom.
requiring content-based coursework in the areas themselves.
Screening candidates at program entry protects the
an academic concentration enhances content knowl-
public’s investment.
edge and ensures that prospective elementary teach-
Teacher preparation programs that do not screen candidates, ers take higher level academic coursework.
particularly programs at public institutions that are heavily sub-
Few states require prospective elementary teachers to major
sidized by the state, invest considerable taxpayer dollars in the
or minor in an academic subject area. Consequently, in most
preparation of individuals who may not be able to successfully
states these teachers can meet subject-matter requirements
complete the program and pass the licensing tests required to
without taking any advanced-level coursework. At minimum,
become a teacher. Candidates needing additional support should
states should require a concentration in an academic area. In
complete remediation prior to program entry, avoiding the pos-
addition to deepening subject-matter knowledge in a particu-
sibility of an unsuccessful investment of significant public tax
lar area, building this concentration into elementary education
dollars.
programs ensures that prospective teachers complete academic
coursework on par with peers earning bachelor’s degrees in other
area 1: goal B areas.
Elementary Teacher Preparation A concentration also provides a fallback for education majors
whose programs deem them unready for the classroom. In most
rationale education programs, virtually all coursework is completed before
The state should ensure that its teacher preparation candidates begin student teaching. The stakes are high once stu-
programs provide elementary teachers with a broad dent teaching begins: if a candidate cannot pass, he or she can-
liberal arts education. not meet requirements for a major or graduate. This may create a
perverse incentive for programs to set low standards for student
Many states’ policies fail to ensure that elementary teacher can-
teaching and/or pass candidates whose clinical experience is un-
didates will complete coursework in topics relevant to common
satisfactory. If they were required to have at least an academic
topics in elementary grades, specifically topics found in states’
concentration, candidates who failed student teaching could still
elementary learning standards. Even when states specify liberal
complete a degree with minimal additional coursework.
arts coursework requirements, the regulatory language can be
quite broad, alluding only minimally to conceptual approaches
Standards-based programs can work when verified by
such as “quantitative reasoning” or “historical understanding.”
testing.
Another common but inadequate approach that states take is
to specify broad curricular areas like “humanities” or “physical Many states no longer prescribe specific courses or credit hours
sciences.” A humanities course could be a general overview of as a condition for teacher candidates to qualify for a license. In-
world literature--an excellent course for a prospective elemen- stead, they require teacher candidates to complete an approved
tary teacher--but it could also be “Introduction to Film Theory.” program that meets state-specific standards or standards set
Likewise, a physical science course could be an overview of rel- forth by accrediting bodies--the National Council for Accredita-
evant topics in physics, chemistry, and astronomy, or it could tion of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Association for Child-
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 135
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
hood Education International (ACEI)--and leave it at that. The Subject-area coursework should be taught by arts and
advantage of this “standards-based” approach is that it grants sciences faculty.
greater flexibility to teacher preparation programs regarding pro-
Most states do not explicitly require that subject-matter course-
gram design.
work be taught by academics in the field, that is, faculty from
However, a significant disadvantage is that the standards-based a university’s college of arts and sciences. While an education
approach is far more difficult to monitor or enforce. While some professor who specializes in science education, for instance, is
programs respond well to the flexibility, others do not. Though well suited to teach effective methodologies in science instruc-
the ACEI/NCATE standards may be beneficial, they are too gen- tion, a scholar in science should provide the foundation work in
eral for states to rely on in their efforts to ensure adequate sub- the subject itself.
ject-matter training. For example, ACEI’s standard for social stud-
States cannot leave these decisions entirely to teacher prepara-
ies requires that elementary teacher candidates be “able to use
tion programs because sending teacher candidates to the college
knowledge, skills and dispositions from social studies to organize
of arts and sciences to complete coursework can run counter to
and provide integrated instruction in grades K-6 for the study
programs’ financial interests.
of major themes, concepts, and modes of inquiry drawn from
academic fields that address: (1) culture; (2) time, continuity, and
Teacher candidates need to be able to “test out” of
change; (3) people, places, and environment; (4) individual devel-
coursework requirements.
opment and identity; (5) individuals, groups, and institutions; (6)
power, governance, and authority; (7) production, distribution, Many elementary teacher candidates will have acquired the
and consumption; (8) science, technology, and society; (9) global knowledge needed to teach elementary grades in their high
connections; and (10) civic ideals and practices.” These broad school coursework and other experiences. Someone who earned
concepts do very little to articulate the actual knowledge that a score of 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam in
elementary teacher candidates should possess. American history does not need to take a general survey course
Standards are important but essentially meaningless absent rig- in college but should be eligible to take a more advanced Ameri-
orous tests to ensure that teacher candidates have met them. can history course focused on a particular topic. States need to
Most states that have chosen the standards-based approach have some process that allows teacher candidates to test out of
have not implemented such tests. In their absence, verifying survey requirements.
that teacher preparation programs are teaching to the standards A legitimate test-out option would require individual subject-
requires an exhaustive review process of matching every stan- matter tests or at least minimum subscores on a general test.
dard with something taught in a course. This approach is neither Good policy would also accept equivalent scores from AP and
practical nor efficient. Tests of broad subject matter are also not SAT II tests.
the solution, given that it is possible to pass without necessarily
demonstrating knowledge in each subject area. For instance, on
many tests of teacher content knowledge, a passing score is pos- area 1: goal c
sible while answering every mathematics question incorrectly. Teacher Preparation in Reading
mere alignment with student learning standards is not
Instruction
sufficient. rationale
Another growing trend in state policy is to require teacher prep- reading science has identified five components of
aration programs to align their instruction with the state’s stu- effective instruction.
dent learning standards. In many states, this alignment exercise Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers
is the only factor considered in deciding the content to be de- undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields
livered to elementary teacher candidates. Alignment of teacher have worked to determine how people learn to read and why
preparation with student learning standards is an important step some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs
but by no means the only one. For example, a program should that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to
prepare teachers in more than just the content that the state become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults. By rou-
expects of its fourth graders. Also critical is moving past align- tinely applying in the classroom the lessons learned from the
ment and deciding the broader set of knowledge a teacher needs scientific findings, most reading failure can be avoided. Estimates
to have to be able to effectively teach fourth grade. The teacher’s indicate that the current failure rate of 20 to 30 percent could be
perspective must be both broader and deeper than what he or reduced to 2 to 10 percent.
she will actually teach.
Scientific research has shown that there are five essential com-
ponents of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic
instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
and comprehension. While elementary teachers need to be well
136 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
versed in these components, even secondary teachers need at Most states’ policies do not require preparation in mathematics
least some knowledge of this process, particularly if they work in of appropriate breadth and depth and specific to the needs of
high-poverty schools. the elementary teacher. NCTQ’s report “No Common Denomi-
Many states’ policies still do not reflect the strong research con- nator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics
sensus in reading instruction that has emerged over the last few by America’s Education Schools” found that only 13 percent of
decades. Many teacher preparation programs, still caught up in teacher preparation programs in a national sample were provid-
the reading wars, resist teaching scientifically based reading in- ing high quality preparation in mathematics. Whether through
struction. NCTQ’s report “What Education Schools Aren’t Teach- standards or coursework requirements, states must ensure that
ing about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren’t Learn- their preparation programs graduate only teacher candidates
ing” found that only 15 percent of teacher preparation programs who are well prepared to teach mathematics.
in a national sample were providing even minimal exposure to
the science of reading. Whether through standards or course- most state tests offer no assurance that teachers are
work requirements, states must ensure that their preparation prepared to teach mathematics.
programs graduate only teacher candidates who know how to Only Massachusetts has developed a rigorous assessment for
teach children to reads. elementary teachers entirely and solely focused on mathemat-
ics. Other states rely on subject-matter tests that include some
most current reading tests do not offer assurance that items (or even a whole section) on mathematics instruction.
teachers know the science of reading. However, since subject-specific passing scores are not required,
A few states, such as Massachusetts and Virginia, have developed one need not know much mathematics in order to pass. In fact,
strong, stand-alone assessments entirely focused on the science one might answer every mathematics question incorrectly and
of reading. Other states rely on either pedagogy tests or content still pass. States need to ensure that it is not possible to pass
tests that include items on reading instruction. However, since a licensure test that purportedly covers mathematics without
reading instruction is addressed only in one small part of most of knowing the critical material.
these tests, it is often not necessary to know the science of read-
ing to pass. States need to make sure that a teacher candidate
cannot pass a test that purportedly covers reading instruction area 1: goal e
without knowing the critical material. Middle School Teacher Preparation
rationale
area 1: goal d States must differentiate middle school teacher prep-
aration from that of elementary teachers.
Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
Middle school grades are critical years of schooling. It is in these
rationale
years that far too many students fall through the cracks. How-
required math coursework should be tailored in both ever, requirements for the preparation and licensure of middle
design and delivery to the unique needs of the ele- school teachers are among the weakest state policies. Too many
mentary teacher. states fail to distinguish the knowledge and skills needed by
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire a deep middle school teachers from those needed by an elementary
conceptual knowledge of the mathematics that they will teach, teacher. Whether teaching a single subject in a departmentalized
moving well beyond mere procedural understanding. Their train- setting or teaching multiple subjects in a self-contained setting,
ing should focus on the critical areas of numbers and operations; middle school teachers must be able to teach significantly more
algebra; geometry and measurement; and, to a lesser degree, advanced content than elementary teachers do. The notion that
data analysis and probability. someone should be identically prepared to teach first grade or
eighth grade mathematics seems ridiculous, but states that li-
To ensure that elementary teachers are well trained to teach the
cense teachers on a K-8 generalist certificate essentially endorse
essential subject of mathematics, states must require teacher
this idea.
preparation programs to cover these four areas in coursework
that it specially designed for prospective elementary teachers.
approved programs should prepare middle school
Leading mathematicians and math educators have found that
teacher candidates to be qualified to teach two sub-
elementary teachers are not well served by courses designed
ject areas.
for a general audience and that methods courses also do not
provide sufficient preparation. According to Dr. Roger Howe, a Since No Child Left Behind requires most aspiring middle school
mathematician at Yale University: “Future teachers do not need teachers to have a major or pass a test in each teaching field, the
so much to learn more mathematics, as to reshape what they law would appear to preclude them from teaching more than
already know.” one subject. However, middle school teacher candidates could
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 137
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
instead earn two subject-area minors, gaining sufficient knowl- Under IDEA, states can award “highly qualified teacher” status to
edge to pass state licensing tests and be highly qualified in both new secondary special education teachers who:
subjects. This policy would increase schools’ staffing flexibility,
especially since teachers seem to show little interest in taking n■ have a major or have passed a subject-matter test in
tests to earn highly qualified teaching status in a second subject one of three content areas: language arts, mathematics,
once they are in the classroom. Research offers little evidence or science (without explanation, the law excludes social
that middle school teachers with a major will be more effec- studies); and
tive than middle school teachers with a minor, and in fact most n■ complete a single HOUSSE route for multiple subjects in
middle schools do not require this credential of teachers. all other subjects that they are likely to teach during their
first two years of teaching.
States need to provide more-specific guidance on this issue. They
area 1: goal f
should require secondary special education teachers to have
Special Education Teacher Preparation broad coursework in multiple subjects and to become highly
rationale qualified in two core academic areas. This will make teachers
more flexible and thus better able to serve schools and students.
all teachers, including special education teach-
States can use a combination of testing and coursework to meet
ers, teach content and therefore need relevant
this goal.
coursework.
Special education teacher candidates who will teach elemen- Secondary special education teachers need to gradu-
tary grades should complete roughly the same core of liberal ate highly qualified in two subject areas.
arts coursework as regular elementary teacher candidates (See
Given that these teachers will be expected to complete a
Goal 1-B). They will need the same knowledge in the classroom.
HOUSSE route in all remaining subject areas during their first
Moreover, from a practical perspective, it is incumbent on teach-
two years of teaching, it makes sense for them to complete
er preparation programs to produce special education teachers
undergraduate training in two related areas, probably either
who are highly qualified in the areas they will teach.
math and science or English and social studies. That way, the
While special educators should be valued for their critical role HOUSSE route can focus on related subject areas and candidates
in working with students with disabilities and special needs, the can focus on related fields, rather than studying up on English,
state identifies them not as “special education assistants” but history, and mathematics, for example, in their first two years of
as “special education teachers,” presumably because it expects teaching.
them to provide instruction. Inclusion models, where special
education students receive instruction from a general education a customized HOuSSe route is needed to meet the
teacher paired with a special education teacher to provide in- needs of new special education teachers to earn high-
structional support, do not mitigate the need for special educa- ly qualified status.
tion teachers to know content. Providing instruction to children
who have special needs requires both knowledge of effective Special education teachers face unique pressures, as they must
learning strategies and of the subject matter at hand. Failure to be competent in both the subject areas they teach and in the
ensure that teachers are well trained in content areas deprives strategies for teaching children with a variety of special needs.
special education students of the opportunity to reach their aca- The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
demic potential. Education Act recognized these pressures in its proviso allow-
ing new secondary special education teachers to use states’
HQT requirements place unique challenges on second- HOUSSE routes to become “highly qualified,” a route normally
ary special education teachers. reserved for veteran teachers.
Whether or not states have discontinued the HOUSSE route
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the 2004 reauthorization of
for veteran teachers, it is this traditional route that most states
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) present
make available for secondary special education teachers. How-
conflicting expectations for the subject-matter preparation of
ever, several problems are common among traditional HOUSSE
new secondary special education teachers. Although the latter,
routes that make them inappropriate for new secondary special
which was passed after NCLB, offers greater flexibility and is
education teachers. First, most state plans are weak on teacher
more realistic than what NCLB suggests, it may not adequately
content preparation even though the intent of the law was for
address teachers’ subject-matter knowledge. States can provide
HOUSSE to address weak subject-matter knowledge. Second, for
some middle ground, while meeting the requirements of both
teachers to achieve highly qualified status, states highly value
laws.
experience, which, of course, a new teacher does not have. Third,
state requirements tend to be inordinately complicated, making
138 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
it hard on a new teacher to know how to navigate the system to area 1: goal h
earn the required credential.
Teacher Preparation Program
Providing a HOUSSE option to special education teachers was
originally seen as a way to streamline the process of achieving Accountability
HQT status for teachers who instruct in multiple subject areas rationale
each day. While it is certainly important that a secondary special
States need to hold programs accountable for the
education teacher has a basic competency in subjects ranging
quality of their graduates.
from mathematics to world history, it is unreasonable to expect
him or her to hold multiple college degrees or pass four or five The state should examine a number of factors when measur-
different content examinations to be deemed highly qualified. ing the performance of and approving teacher preparation pro-
States can help new secondary special education teachers be- grams. The quality of both the subject-matter preparation and
come highly qualified in multiple subjects by encouraging them professional sequence is crucial. However, in addition to consid-
to pursue professional development and coursework that focus- eration of program content, NCTQ recommends measures that
es on state student learning standards. Having available adapted can provide the state and the public with meaningful, readily
subject-matter tests would also add much-needed flexibility. understandable indicators of how well programs are doing in
what is most important: preparing teachers to be successful in
Structured properly, HOUSSE would offer an efficient means by
the classroom.
which a teacher could gain a broad overview of a specific area
of content knowledge. One clear option would be for a state to Average scores on basic skills tests of individuals admitted to
identify focused, content-driven university courses that would programs can help the state know, “Are programs appropriate-
give teachers a survey of the information necessary to teach a ly screening applicants?” Pass rate data on licensing tests can
given subject. A single world history course could provide a suffi- help inform states, “Are programs delivering essential academic
cient basis in social studies; a single quantitative reasoning course and professional knowledge?” Classroom performance data and
could give a broad review of mathematical concepts. While not evaluation ratings can help the state determine, “Are programs
providing expertise, such classes could provide the proficiency producing effective classroom teachers?”
needed for a teacher to obtain highly qualified teacher status in Collecting effective pass rate data on state licensing tests is es-
the subject. pecially important. At a minimum, the state should ensure that
programs are reporting pass rates for individuals entering stu-
dent teaching, not program completers, because the former is
area 1: goal g now required under the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Edu-
Assessing Professional Knowledge cation Act. It is also a method that will not mask the number of
individuals the program was unable to properly prepare.
rationale
a good pedagogy test puts teeth in states’ profession-
al standards. area 1: goal i
In order to ensure that the state is licensing only teachers who State Authority for Program Approval
meet its expectations, all standards must be testable. The state’s rationale
specifying standards that cannot be assessed in a practical and
States should not cede oversight authority over their
cost-effective manner has no value. Examples of knowledge that
teacher preparation programs to accreditors.
can be tested include the basic elements of good instruction,
how to communicate effectively with children, how to use class The recent growth in the popularity of national accreditation has
time efficiently, effective questioning techniques, establishing led some states to adopt policies that blur the line between the
smooth classroom routines, the importance of feedback, en- public process of state program approval and the private process
gaging parents, the best methods for teaching reading as well of national accreditation. The factors considered for accreditation
as other subjects, appropriate use of technology, knowledge of are broader and more formative in nature than the factors that
testing, and the fundamentals of addressing individual learning should be considered by the state when approving programs. The
challenges. state’s primary interest is--or should be--narrower, more sharply
States use too many tests to measure new teachers’ professional focused on only those aspects of teacher preparation that direct-
knowledge that utterly fail to do so, either because the passing ly relate to teacher effectiveness and those measures that can be
score is set so low that anyone--even those who have not had quantified (see Goals 1-H). While both the state and the accred-
professional preparation--can pass or because one can discern iting body share the same ultimate goal--quality teachers--the
the “right” answer on an item simply by the way it is written. questions that each asks differ.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 139
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
Furthermore, although there may be a growing consensus as area 2: goal a
to what teachers should know and be able to do--a consensus
that could eventually strengthen the accreditation movement- Alternate Route Eligibility
-no solid evidence exists that shows that nationally accredited rationale
teacher preparation programs produce better teachers than un- alternate route teachers need the advantage of a
accredited programs. strong academic background.
States may choose to endorse the standards of national ac-
The intent of alternate route programs is to provide a route for
crediting bodies, but these bodies’ standards should not be seen
those who already have strong subject-matter knowledge to en-
as adequate substitutes for state program approval standards.
ter the profession, allowing them to focus on gaining the profes-
Unfortunately, some states have allowed programs to substitute
sional skills needed for the classroom. This intent is based on the
national accreditation for state program approval. A few states
fact that academic caliber has been shown to be a strong predic-
have gone further and required that all teacher preparation pro-
tor of classroom success. Programs that admit candidates with a
grams at public universities attain NCATE accreditation. A few
weak grasp of both subject matter and professional knowledge
more have required that all in-state programs, public and private,
can put the new teacher in an impossible position, where he or
attain national accreditation. These policies are inappropriate,
she is much more likely to experience failure and perpetuate high
since they require that public funds and institutional resources
attrition rates.
be spent meeting the standards of a private organization that
has yet to be recognized as the undisputed guarantor of mini-
academic requirements for admission to alternate
mum quality in its field.
routes should exceed the requirements for traditional
programs.
area 1: goal j Assessing a teacher candidate’s college GPA and/or aptitude
scores can provide useful and reliable measures of academic cali-
Balancing Professional Coursework
ber, provided that the state does not set the floor too low. A 2.5
rationale minimum GPA is the common choice of many alternate route
most states have programs that demand excessive programs but may be too low. It is about the same as what most
requirements. teacher preparation programs require of traditional candidates.
Some programs address this problem by looking for at least a
NCTQ’s research shows that most states have teacher prepara-
2.75 in the last 60 hours of college, as indicative of a candidate’s
tion programs where teacher candidates are required to com-
growing seriousness of purpose. GPA measures are especially
plete more than 60 credit hours of professional coursework.
useful for assessing elementary teacher qualifications, since el-
These are excessive requirements that leave little room for elec-
ementary teaching demands a broader body of knowledge that
tives and often leave insufficient room for adequate subject-
can be harder to define in terms of specific tests or coursework.
matter preparation. Though there is no research data to confirm
this, it seems likely that such excessive requirements would dis-
multiple ways for assessing subject-matter compe-
courage talented individuals from pursuing teacher preparation
tency are needed to accommodate nontraditional
and public school teaching.
candidates.
States need to monitor programs’ total professional Rigid coursework requirements can dissuade talented, qualified
coursework requirements. individuals who lack precisely the “right” courses from pursuing
a career in teaching. States can maintain high standards by using
Although some states specify a reasonable amount of mini-
appropriate tests to allow individuals to prove their subject-mat-
mum professional coursework that new teachers must complete,
ter knowledge. For instance, an engineer who wishes to teach
teacher preparation programs often require far more. Requiring
physics should face no coursework obstacles as long as he or she
teachers to complete a minimum amount of coursework does
can prove sufficient knowledge of physics on a test. A good test
nothing to ensure that approved programs will limit themselves
with a sufficiently high passing score is certainly as reliable as
to those minimums. It is also not necessarily the case that pro-
courses listed on a transcript, if not more so.
grams should be limited to those minimums.
140 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
area 2: goal B Some states claim the limitations they place on the use of their
alternate routes impose quality control. However, states control
Alternate Route Preparation who is admitted and who is licensed. With appropriate standards
rationale for admission (see Goal 2-A) and program accountability (see
The program must provide practical, meaningful Goal 2-D), quality can be safeguarded without casting alternate
preparation that is sensitive to a new teacher’s stress routes as routes of last resort or branding alternate route teach-
level. ers “second-class citizens.”
Too many states have policies requiring alternate route programs
to “back-load” large amounts of traditional education course- area 2: goal d
work, thereby preventing the emergence of real alternatives to Alternate Route Program Accountability
traditional preparation. This issue is especially important given
the large proportion of alternate route teachers who complete rationale
this coursework while teaching. Alternate route teachers often alternate route programs should show they consis-
have to deal with the stresses of beginning to teach while also tently produce effective teachers.
completing required coursework in the evenings and on week- All data that are collected on alternate route programs should
ends. States need to be careful to require participants only to focus on the central question of whether they produce effective
meet standards or complete coursework that is practical and im- teachers. Although many components are involved in a good al-
mediately helpful to a new teacher. ternate route program, the output of productive teachers is the
only true indicator of success. The indicators NCTQ recommends
induction support is especially important for alter- capture a comprehensive vision of teacher effectiveness.
nate route teachers.
Alternate route programs need to be held as accountable for
their results as traditional programs are. While the training and
Most new teachers--regardless of their preparation--find
time associated with alternate route programs differ substan-
themselves overwhelmed upon taking responsibility for their
tially from those of traditional programs, the outputs of student
own classrooms. This is especially true for alternate route learning and teacher effectiveness should be held to an identical
teachers, who may have had considerably less classroom ex- standard.
posure or pedagogy training than traditionally prepared teach-
ers. While alternate route programs will ideally have provided
at least a brief student teaching experience, not all programs area 2: goal e
can incorporate it into their models. States must ensure that Licensure Reciprocity
alternate route programs do not leave new teachers to “sink
rationale
or swim” on their own when they begin teaching.
using transcripts to judge teacher competency pro-
vides little value.
area 2: goal c In an attempt to ensure that teachers have the appropriate pro-
Alternate Route Usage and Providers fessional and subject-matter knowledge base when granting cer-
tification, states often review a teacher’s college transcript, no
rationale matter how many years earlier a bachelor’s degree was earned. A
alternate routes should be structured to do more than state certification specialist reviews the college transcript, look-
just address shortages; they should provide an alter- ing for course titles that appear to match state requirements.
native pipeline for talented individuals to enter the If the right matches are not found, a teacher may be required
profession. to complete additional coursework before receiving standard
licensure. This practice holds true even for experienced teach-
Many states have structured their alternate routes as a stream-
ers who are trying to transfer from another state, regardless of
lined means to certify teachers in shortage subjects, grades or
experience or success level. The application of these often-
geographic areas. While alternate routes are an important mech-
complex state rules results in unnecessary obstacles to hiring
anism for addressing shortages, they also serve the wider-reach-
talented and experienced teachers. Little evidence indicates
ing and more consequential purpose of providing an alternative
that reviewing a person’s undergraduate coursework improves
pathway for talented individuals to enter the profession. A true
the quality of the teaching force or ensures that teachers have
alternate route creates a new pipeline of potential teachers by
adequate knowledge.
certifying those with valuable knowledge and skills who did not
prepare to teach as undergraduates and are disinclined to fulfill
the requirements of a new degree.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 141
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
Testing requirements should be upheld, not waived. characteristics. In the area of teacher quality, value-added mod-
While many states impose burdensome coursework require- els offer a fairer and potentially more meaningful way to evalu-
ments, they often fail to impose minimum standards on licensure ate a teacher’s effectiveness than other methods schools use.
tests. Instead, they offer waivers to veteran teachers transferring For example, at one time a school might have known only that
from other states, thereby failing to impose minimal standards its fifth-grade teacher, Mrs. Jones, consistently had students
of professional and subject-matter knowledge. In upholding li- who did not score at grade level on standardized assessments
censure standards for out-of-state teachers, the state should be of reading. With value-added analysis, the school can learn that
flexible in its processes but vigilant in its verification of adequate Mrs. Jones’ students were reading on a third-grade level when
knowledge. Too many states have policies and practices that re- they entered her class, and that they were above a fourth-grade
verse these priorities, focusing diligently on comparison of tran- performance level at the end of the school year. While not yet
scripts to state documents while demonstrating little oversight reaching appropriate grade level, Mrs. Jones’ students had made
of teachers’ knowledge. If a state can verify that a teacher has more than a year’s progress in her class. Because of value-added
taught successfully and has the required subject-matter and pro- data, the school can see that she is an effective teacher.
fessional knowledge, its only concern should be ensuring that he The school could not have seen this effectiveness without a data
or she is familiar with the state’s student learning standards. system that connects student and teacher data. Furthermore,
multiple years of data are necessary to enable meaningful deter-
Signing on to the NaSdTec interstate agreement minations of teacher effectiveness. Value-added analysis requires
at least signals a state’s willingness to consider both student and teacher identifiers and the ability to match
portability. test records over time.
Many states have signed onto the Interstate Agreement spon-
sored by the National Association of State Directors of Teacher There are a number of responsible uses for value-add-
Education and Certification (NASDTEC), an organization con- ed analysis.
cerned with facilitating licensure reciprocity. However, the NAS- assessing individual Teachers: With three years of good data,
DTEC Interstate Agreement does not guarantee full transfer of value-added analysis can identify the strongest and weakest
certification and endorsement. Despite having signed the agree- teachers; however, it is not as useful at distinguishing differences
ment, many states still require veteran teachers to complete among teachers in the middle range of performance. This is why
additional coursework to attain full licensure. Neverthelesss by value-added analysis should be used only to provide part of the
signing this agreement, states are taking a good first step toward evidence of teacher effectiveness.
achieving nationwide portability.
School Performance: Value-added analysis can accurately assess
States licensing out-of-state teachers should not the learning gains and losses made in a single school with less
differentiate between experienced teachers prepared risk of measurement error. The U.S. Department of Education is
in alternate routes and those prepared in traditional working with states to pilot something akin to value-added anal-
programs. ysis, known as “student growth” models, to determine schools’
It is understandable that states are wary of accepting alternate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Student growth models are not
route teachers from other states, since programs vary widely in as effective as value-added models at controlling for factors
quality. However, the same wide variety in quality can be found other than the quality of the teacher. However, these models are
in traditional programs. If a teacher comes from another state still valuable for providing a measure of academic improvement
with a standard license and can pass the state’s licensure tests, for the school overall, leaving open their potential use for de-
whether the preparation was traditional or alternative should be termining school-wide bonuses. A good value-added model is a
irrelevant. subset of a student growth model; it can more precisely separate
out nonschool effects on learning, making it possible to better
distinguish a specific teacher’s impact.
area 3: goal a
applicability to all Teachers: Many critics of value-added mod-
State Data Systems els dismiss them because they can only be used for teachers in
rationale tested subjects. While some subjects do not lend themselves to
value-added analysis connects student data to teach- a value-added model, more teachers may be eligible than may
er data to measure achievement and performance. be immediately obvious. For example, student reading scores are
affected by the quality of social studies and science instruction,
Value-added models are an important tool for measuring student
not just language arts instruction. Reading comprehension is di-
achievement and school effectiveness. These models measure in-
rectly connected to student learning of broad subject matter,
dividual students’ learning gains, controlling for students’ previ-
including history, geography and science.
ous knowledge. They can also control for students’ background
142 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
High School: A value-added model is theoretically most useful a. Observation
at the high school level, where teachers are typically assigned 1. Ratings should be based on multiple observations by multiple
many more students, making annual results more reliable. Data persons, usually the principal and senior faculty, within the same
from an elementary class size of 20 to 30 students can produce year to produce a more accurate rating than is possible with a
relatively unstable results for a single year. A high school teacher, single observation. Teacher observers should be trained to use a
however, will be assigned on average 120 students, which would valid and reliable observation protocol (meaning that it has been
yield a much more stable, reliable indicator of actual teacher tested to ensure that the results are trustworthy and useful).
performance. Use at the high school level would require states to The observers should assign degrees of proficiency to observed
adopt reliable pre- and post-tests in core subject areas. behaviors.
Pilots: States can directly and indirectly encourage districts to 2. The primary observation component should be the quality of
implement value-added analysis. By piloting value-added analy- instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp
sis in districts or schools, the states can directly encourage devel- or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class
opment of this valuable tool for eventual statewide use. Other time.
programs, such as state-sponsored pay-for-performance pro- 3. Other factors often considered in the course of an observation
grams that base bonuses, in part, on teachers’ ability to produce can provide useful information, including:
student academic gains, can indirectly encourage experimenta- n■ questioning techniques and other methods for
tion with value-added analysis.
engaging class;
n■ differentiation of instruction;
evaluating Teacher-Preparation Programs: Another innovative
use for value-added analysis is its inclusion in the evaluation of n■ continual student checks for understanding throughout
teacher preparation programs. Value-added analysis that mea- lesson;
sures the effectiveness of program graduates can provide valu- n■ appropriate lesson structure and pacing;
able information that can be used to hold poor teacher prepara- n■ appropriate grouping structures;
tion programs accountable, as well as identify strong programs n■ reinforcement of student effort; and
that can be models for best practices. n■ classroom management and use of effective classroom
routines.
area 3: goal B Other elements commonly found on many instruments, such as
“makes appropriate and effective use of technology” and”ties
Evaluation of Effectiveness lesson into previous and future learning experiences” may seem
rationale important but can be difficult to document reliably in an ob-
Teachers should be judged primarily by their impact servation. Having too many elements can distract the observer
on students. from the central question: “Are students learning?”
While many factors should be considered in formally evaluating B. Objective measures of Student learning
a teacher, nothing is more important than effectiveness in the Apart from the observation, the evaluation instrument
classroom. Unfortunately, districts use many evaluation instru-
should provide evidence of work performance. Many districts
ments, some mandated by states, that are structured so that
use portfolios, which create a lot of work for the teacher and
teachers can earn a satisfactory rating without any evidence that
they are sufficiently advancing student learning in the classroom.
may be unreliable indicators of effectiveness. Good and less-
It is often enough that teachers just appear to be trying, not cumbersome alternatives to the standard portfolio exist, for
necessarily succeeding. example:
n■ The value that a teacher adds, as measured by stan-
Many evaluation instruments give as much weight, or more, to dardized test scores;
factors that lack any direct correlation with student performance, n■ Periodic standardized diagnostic assessments;
for example, taking professional development courses, assuming n■ Benchmark assessments that show student growth;
extra duties such as sponsoring a club or mentoring, and getting n■ Artifacts of student work connected to specific student
along well with colleagues. Some instruments hesitate to hold learning standards that are randomly selected for
teachers accountable for student progress. Teacher evaluation review by the principal or senior faculty and scored
instruments should include factors that combine both human using rubrics and descriptors;
judgment and objective measures of student learning. n■ Examples of typical assignments, assessed for their
A teacher evaluation instrument that focuses on student learn- quality and rigor; and
ing could include the following components: n■ Periodic checks on progress with the curriculum (e.g.,
progress on textbook) coupled with evidence of student
mastery of the curriculum from quizzes, tests, and exams.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 143
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
area 3: goal c area 3: goal d
Frequency of Evaluations Tenure
rationale rationale
annual evaluations are standard practice in most Tenure should be a significant and consequential mile-
professional jobs. stone in a teacher’s career.
Most states do not mandate annual evaluations of teachers who The decision to give teachers tenure (or permanent status) is
have reached permanent or tenured status. The lack of regular usually made automatically, with little thought, deliberation or
evaluations is unique to the teaching profession and does little consideration of actual evidence. State policy should reflect the
to advance the notion that teachers are professionals. fact that initial certification is temporary and probationary, and
Further, teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere for- that tenure is intended to be a significant reward for teachers
malities, rather than as important tools for rewarding good who have consistently shown effectiveness and commitment.
teachers, helping average teachers improve, and holding weak Tenure and advanced certification are not rights implied by the
teachers accountable for poor performance. State policy should conferring of an initial teaching certificate. No other profession,
reflect the importance of evaluations so that teachers and prin- including higher education, offers practitioners tenure after only
cipals alike take their consequences seriously (see Goal 5-B). a few years of working in the field.
To make tenure meaningful, states should require a clear process,
evaluations are especially important for new such as a hearing, for districts to use when considering whether a
teachers. teacher advances from probationary to permanent status. Such
Individuals new to a profession frequently have reduced respon- process would ensure that the local district reviews the teacher’s
sibilities coupled with increased oversight. As competencies are performance before making a determination. This also protects
demonstrated, new responsibilities are added and supervision the teacher’s rights, as he or she knows of the process and has an
decreases. Such is seldom the case for new teachers, who gener- opportunity to participate.
ally have the same classroom responsibilities as veteran teach- States should also ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the
ers, including responsibility for the academic progress of their preponderant (but not the only) criterion for making tenure de-
students, but may receive limited feedback on their performance. cisions. Most states confer tenure at a point that is too early
In the absence of good metrics for determining who will be an for the collection of sufficient and adequate data that reflect
effective teacher before he or she begins to teach, it is critical teacher performance. Ideally, states would accumulate such data
that schools and districts closely monitor the performance of for five years. This robust data set would prevent effective teach-
new teachers. ers from being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
States should require that districts formally evaluate new teach- and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure.
ers at least twice annually. A formal evaluation results in a rating
that becomes part of the teacher’s record. Evaluations should
area 3: goal e
not be treated as formalities; they are an important tool for
identifying teachers’ strengths and areas that need improve- Licensure Advancement
ment. Although the goal should always be to provide feedback rationale
and support that will help teachers address weaknesses, evalua-
The reason for probationary licensure should be to
tions also serve an important purpose in holding weak teachers
determine teacher effectiveness.
accountable for continued poor performance.
Most states grant new teachers a probationary license that must
The state should specifically require that districts evaluate new
later be converted to an advanced or professional license. A pro-
teachers early in the school year. This policy would help ensure
bationary period is sound policy as it provides an opportunity
that new teachers get the support they need early and that
to determine whether individuals merit professional licensure.
supervisors know from the beginning of the school year which
However, very few states require any determination of teacher
new teachers (and which students) may be at risk. Requiring at
performance or effectiveness in deciding whether a teacher will
least one additional evaluation provides important data about
advance from the probationary license. Instead, states generally
the teacher’s ability to improve. Data from evaluations from the
require probationary teachers to fulfill a set of requirements to
teacher’s early years of teaching can then be used as part of the
receive advanced certification. Thus, ending the probationary pe-
performance-based evidence to make a decision about tenure.
riod is based on whether a checklist has been completed, rather
than on teacher performance and effectiveness.
144 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
most state requirements for achieving permanent gency credentials; average selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate
certification have not been shown to impact teacher colleges; and the percentage of new teachers. These factors are
effectiveness. complicated, so the state should install a system that translates
Unfortunately, not only do most states fail to connect advanced them into something more easily understood, such as a color-
certification to actual evidence of teacher effectiveness, but coded matrix indicating a high or low score for a school.
the requirements teachers must most often meet are not even
States need to report data at the level of the individ-
related to teacher effectiveness. The most common requirement
ual school.
for permanent licensure is completion of additional coursework,
often resulting in a master’s degree. Requiring teachers to obtain Only by achieving greater stability in the staffing of individual
additional training in their teaching area would be meaning- schools can districts achieve the nation’s goal of more equi-
ful; however, the requirements are usually vague, allowing the table distribution of teacher quality. A strong reporting system
teacher to fulfill coursework requirements from long menus that reflecting the index described above, as well as data on teacher
include areas having no connection or use to the teacher in the attrition, teacher absenteeism and teacher credentials can lend
classroom. The research evidence on requiring a master’s degree much-needed transparency to those factors that contribute to
is quite conclusive: these degrees have not been shown to make staffing instability and inequity.
teachers more effective. This is likely due in no small part to the The lack of such data feeds a misconception that all high-pover-
fact that teachers generally do not attain master’s degrees in ty schools are similarly unable to retain staff because of their so-
their subject areas. According to the National Center for Educa- cioeconomic and racial status. If collected and disaggregated to
tional Statistics, fewer than one-fourth of secondary teachers’ the level of the individual school, however, such data could shift
master’s degrees are in their subject area, and only 7 percent the focus of districts and states toward the quality of leadership
of elementary teachers’ master’s degrees are in an academic at the school level and away from the notion that instability
subject. and inequity are unavoidable consequences of poverty and race.
In addition to their dubious value, these requirements may also Variations in staff stability are huge among schools with similar
serve as a disincentive to teacher retention. Talented probation- numbers of poor and/or minority children. School culture, largely
ary teachers may be unwilling to invest time and resources in determined by school leadership, contributes greatly to teach-
more education coursework. Further, they may well pursue er morale, which in turn affects teacher success and student
advanced degrees that facilitate leaving teaching. achievement. By revealing these variations among schools facing
the same challenges, school leadership can be held accountable-
-and rewarded when successful.
area 3: goal f Within-district comparisons are crucial in order to control for as
Equitable Distribution many elements specific to a district as possible, such as a collec-
rationale tive bargaining agreement (or the district’s personnel policies)
and the amount of resources.
distribution data should show more than just teach-
ers’ years of experience and highly qualified status.
The first step in addressing the distribution of teachers is bring- area 4: goal a
ing transparency to the issue. States generally report little more Induction
than what is required by No Child Left Behind, which highlights
years of experience and HQT status. However, while teaching ex- rationale
perience matters, the benefits of experience are largely accumu- Too many new teachers are left to “sink or swim” when
lated within the first few years of teaching. School districts that they begin teaching.
try to equalize experience among all schools are overestimating Most new teachers are overwhelmed and undersupported at the
its impact. There is no reason why a school with many teach- outset of their teaching careers. Although differences in prepara-
ers with only three or five years’ experience cannot outperform tion programs and routes to the classroom do affect readiness,
a school with teachers who have an average of more than ten even teachers from the most rigorous programs need support
years’ experience. once they take on the myriad responsibilities of a teacher of re-
For this reason, states need to report data that are more infor- cord. A survival-of-the-fittest mentality prevails in many schools;
mative about a school’s teachers. States can accomplish this by figuring out how to successfully negotiate unfamiliar curricula,
using an index for quantifying important teacher credentials discipline and management issues, and labyrinthine school and
found to correlate with student achievement. A good example of district procedures is considered a rite of passage. However, new
a strong index is the academic capital index developed by the Illi- teacher frustrations are not limited to low performers. Many tal-
nois Education Research Council, incorporating teachers’ average ented new teachers become disillusioned early by the lack of
SAT or ACT scores; the percentage of teachers failing basic skills support they receive, and it may be the most talented who will
licensure test at least once; the percentage of teachers on emer- more likely explore other career options.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 145
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
vague requirements simply to provide mentoring are that is primarily based on experience and degree status, even
insufficient. when they would like to have other options.
Although many states recognize the need to provide mentoring It should also be noted that the minimums set by many states--
to new teachers, state policies merely indicating that mentoring whether a minimum starting salary or a complete schedule--are
should occur will not ensure that districts provide new teachers woefully out-of-date, not having been updated for 20 years or
with quality mentoring experiences. While allowing flexibility for more in some cases. The starting salary in Louisiana, for example,
districts to develop and implement programs in line with local has been just over $12,000 since 1987; the Massachusetts mini-
priorities and resources, states also should articulate the mini- mum of $18,000 dates to 1988. Rather than maintain policies
mum requirements for these programs in terms of the frequency lacking meaningful guidance to districts or assurance to teach-
and duration of mentoring and the qualifications of those serv- ers, states should remove these regulations and send a clear
ing as mentors. message to districts that they can decide how to compensate
their teachers.
New teachers in high-needs schools particularly need
quality mentoring.
area 4: goal c
Retaining effective teachers in high-needs schools is especially
challenging. States should ensure that districts place special
Retention Pay
emphasis on mentoring programs in these schools, particularly rationale
when limited resources may prevent the district from providing connecting additional compensation to the awarding
mentoring to all new teachers. of tenure would add to its significance and improve
teacher retention.
area 4: goal B Starting salaries for teachers have risen significantly in many
Pay Scales states over the last decade. While this may help attract prom-
ising candidates, the small pay increases that generally follow,
rationale particularly in the first few years of teaching, may deter reten-
compensation reform can be accomplished within the tion. Most state and district salary schedules provide only small
context of local control. percentage increases in the early years, with the percentage in-
Teacher pay is, and should be, largely a local issue. Districts should creases widening later. Longevity bonuses are also common. A
not face state-imposed regulatory obstacles that prevent them better strategy would be to connect a significant pay increase to
from paying their teachers as they see fit; different communi- the awarding of tenure, but only if tenure is based on a determi-
ties have different resources, needs and priorities. States should nation of effectiveness.
remove any barriers to districts’ autonomy in deciding the terms A tenure-connected pay increase, whether a significant salary
for teacher compensation packages. increase or a single lump-sum payment, would serve two im-
The state can ensure that all teachers are treated fairly by de- portant and complementary purposes. First, connecting this pay-
termining a minimum starting salary for all teachers. However, ment to a meaningful process for awarding tenure to effective
a state-mandated salary schedule that locks in pay increases or teachers would enhance public understanding that tenure is not
requires uniform pay deprives districts of the ability to be flex- awarded automatically to just anyone. In addition, it would pro-
ible and responsive to supply-and-demand problems that may vide an important retention strategy, as teachers at the begin-
occur. ning of their careers would know that they will receive additional
compensation at the conclusion of their probationary periods if
There is an important difference between a state’s their effectiveness is demonstrated.
setting the minimum teacher salary and setting a sal-
ary schedule. area 4: goal d
What is the difference between establishing a minimum starting Compensation for Prior Work Experience
salary and a salary schedule? Maine, for example, set a minimum
rationale
starting salary of $30,000 for its teachers in 2007-2008. No dis-
trict may pay less. In contrast, Washington, like many states, has districts should be allowed to pay new teachers
established a salary schedule that lays out what the minimum with relevant work experience more than other new
salary must be at every level. A teacher who has been teach- teachers.
ing for four years and has a master’s degree may not be paid State and district salary structures frequently fail to recognize
less than $40,998. One who has taught for four years and does that new teacher hires are not necessarily new to the workforce.
not have a master’s degree may not be paid less than $34,464. Some new teachers bring with them deep work experience that
While most districts exceed the state minimum, setting the sal- is directly related to the subject matter they will teach. For ex-
ary schedule forces districts to adhere to a compensation system ample, the hiring of a new high school chemistry teacher with
146 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
20 years experience as a chemical engineer would most certainly States should set guidelines for districts to ensure
be a great boon to any district. Yet most salary structures would that plans are fair and sound.
place this individual at the same point on the schedule as a new Performance pay plans are not easy to implement well. There
teacher straight out of college. Compensating these teachers are numerous examples of both state and district initiatives
commensurate with their experience is an important retention that have been undone by poor planning and administration.
(as well as recruitment) strategy, particularly when other, non- The methodology that allows for the measurement of teach-
teaching opportunities in these fields are likely to be more finan- ers’ contributions to student achievement is still developing, and
cially lucrative. any performance pay program must recognize its limitations (see
As discussed in Goal 4-B, specifics of teacher pay should largely Goal 3-A for more on the appropriate uses of this methodology).
be left to local decision making. However, states should use pol- There are also inherent issues of fairness that should be consid-
icy mechanisms to inform districts that it is not only permissible ered when different types of data must be used to assess the
but also necessary to compensate new teachers with related performance of different kinds of teachers.
prior work experience appropriately. States can play an important role in supporting performance pay
by setting guidelines (whether for a state-level program or for
districts’ own initiatives) that recognize the challenges in imple-
area 4: goal e menting a program well. Because this is an area in which there
Differential Pay is still much to learn about best practice, states should consider
rationale piloting local initiatives as a way to expand the use of and knowl-
edge base around performance pay.
States should take the lead in addressing chronic
shortages and needs.
As discussed in Goal 4-B, states should ensure that state-level area 4: goal g
policies (such as a uniform salary schedule) do not interfere with
districts’ flexibility in compensating teachers in ways that best
Pension Sustainability
meet their individual needs and resources. However, when it rationale
comes to addressing chronic shortages, states should do more many states’ pension systems are based on promises
than simply get out of the way. They should provide direct sup- they cannot afford to keep.
port for differential pay for effective teaching in shortage subject Teacher salaries are just one part of the compensation package
areas and high-needs schools. Attracting effective and qualified that teachers receive. Virtually all teachers are also entitled to a
teachers to high-needs schools or filling vacancies in hard-to- pension, which, upon vesting, provides compensation for the rest
staff subjects are problems that are frequently beyond a district’s of their lives after retirement. In an era when retirement benefits
ability to solve. States that provide direct support for differential have been shrinking across industries and professions, teachers’
pay in these areas are taking an important step in promoting generous pensions remain fixed. In fact, nearly all states continue
the equitable distribution of quality teachers. Short of providing to provide teachers with a defined-benefit pension system, an
direct support, states can also use policy levers to indicate to dis- expensive and inflexible model that neither reflects the realities
tricts that differential pay is not only permissible but necessary. of the modern workforce nor provides equitable benefits to all
teachers.
area 4: goal f Under defined benefit systems, states have made an obligation
to fund fixed benefits for teachers at retirement. However, the
Performance Pay financial health and sustainability of many states’ systems are
rationale questionable at best. Some systems carry high levels of unfund-
Performance pay is an important retention strategy. ed liabilities, with no strategy to pay these liabilities down in a
reasonable period, as defined by standard accounting practices.
Performance pay provides an opportunity to reward those teach-
Without reform, these systems are a house of cards, vulnerable
ers who consistently achieve positive results from their students.
to collapse as funding cannot keep up with promised benefits.
The traditional salary schedule used by districts pays all teach-
And it is taxpayers who will have to pay if it all tumbles down.
ers with the same inputs (i.e., experience and degree status) the
same amount regardless of outcomes. Not only is following a Pension plans disadvantage teachers early in their ca-
mandated schedule inconsistent with most other professions, it reers by overcommitting employer resources to retire-
may also deter high-achieving teachers from staying in the field, ment benefits.
because it offers no opportunity for financial reward for success.
The contribution of employers to their workers’ retirement ben-
efits is a valuable benefit, important to ensuring that individu-
als have sufficient retirement savings. Compensation resources,
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 147
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
however, are not unlimited, and they must fund both current sal- own contributions plus contributions from the employer specifi-
aries and future retirement benefits. Mandated employer contri- cally on the individual employee’s behalf. This is fundamentally
butions to many states’ teacher pension systems are extremely more equitable than defined benefit plans, which are generally
high, leaving districts with little flexibility to be more innovative structured to require new teachers to fund the benefits of retir-
with their compensation strategies. This is further exacerbated ees. Moreover, defined contribution plans are inherently portable
for states in which teachers also participate in Social Security, and give employees flexibility and control over their retirement
requiring the district to pay even more toward teacher retire- savings. It must also be noted that defined benefit plans can be
ment. While retirement savings in addition to Social Security are portable and fair, if structured as cash balance plans or plans that
necessary, states are mandating contributions to two inflexible permit the withdrawal of employer contributions.
plans, rather than permitting options for teachers or their em-
ploying districts. area 4: goal i
This approach to compensation disadvantages teachers early Pension Neutrality
in their careers, as the commitment of resources to retirement
rationale
benefits almost certainly depresses salaries and prevents incen-
tives. Lower mandatory employer contribution rates (in states it is unfair to all teachers when pension wealth does
where they are too high; in some states they are shamefully low) not accumulate in a uniform way.
would free up compensation resources to implement the kinds In addition to the ways defined benefit pension systems disad-
of strategies suggested elsewhere in the Yearbook. In addition, vantage teachers described in Goal 4-H, the way pension wealth
some states require high employee contributions; the impact accumulates in some systems further compounds the inequity.
this has on teachers’ paychecks may impact retention, especially All pension systems use a multiplier to calculate the benefits an
early in teachers’ careers. individual is entitled to receive based on salary levels and years
of service. For example, a pension system may have a multiplier
of 2.0. In such case, pension benefits are determined by multi-
area 4: goal h plying average final annual salary by years of service and then
Pension Flexibility multiplying the product by 2.0. Thus, someone working fewer
rationale years with a lower final salary would appropriately receive less
in benefits than someone with more years of service and/or a
anachronistic features of teacher pension plans higher final salary. However, the multiplier in many pension sys-
disadvantage teachers early in their careers. tems is not fixed; it increases as years of service increase. When
Nearly all states continue to provide teachers with a defined a higher multiplier is used, teachers receive even more generous
benefit pension system, an expensive and inflexible model that benefits.
neither reflects the realities of the modern workforce nor pro-
Another way that pension benefits are awarded unfairly is through
vides equitable benefits to all teachers. To achieve the maximum
the common policy of setting retirement eligibility at different
benefits from such a plan, a teacher must begin and end his or
ages and years of service. In Hawaii, for example, a teacher with
her career in the same pension system. Teachers who leave be-
30 years of service may retire at age 55, while teachers with few-
fore vesting--which is as much as 10 years in some states--are
er years of service may not retire until age 62. This means that
generally entitled to nothing more than their own contributions
a teacher who started teaching in Hawaii at age 25 would reach
plus some interest. This approach may well serve as a retention
30 years of service at age 55 and receive seven additional years
strategy for some, but on a larger scale, it fails to reflect the
of full retirement benefits beyond what a teacher that started
realities of the current workforce. At present, the United States
at age 32 and cannot retire with full benefits until age 62 would
is experiencing an explosion in school-age populations in some
receive. A fair system would set a standard retirement age for all
states, while others decline. The nation’s workforce needs to be
participants, without factoring in years of service.
able to respond to these changes. The current workforce is in-
creasingly mobile, with most entering the workforce expecting Pension systems affect when teachers decide to retire
to change jobs many times. All workers, including teachers, may as they look to maximize their pension wealth.
move to jobs in other states with no intention of changing ca-
The year teachers reach retirement eligibility by age and/or years
reers. To younger teachers in particular, a defined benefit plan
of service, their pension wealth peaks; pension wealth then de-
may seem like a meaningless part of the compensation package
clines for each year they work beyond retirement age. Plans that
and thus fail to attract young talent to the profession. A pension
allow retirement based on years of service create unnecessary
plan that cannot move across state lines and requires a long-
peaks, and plans that allow a low retirement age create an incen-
term commitment may not seem like much of a benefit at all.
tive to retire earlier in one’s career than may be necessary. For
There are alternatives. Defined contribution plans are fair to all every year teachers continue to work beyond their eligibility for
teachers, at all points in their careers. These plans are more eq- unreduced retirement benefits, they lose that year of pension
uitable because each teacher’s benefits are funded by his or her benefits, thus decreasing their overall pension wealth.
148 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
Although their yearly pension benefits would continue to rise as While some flexibility may be necessary because licensing tests
they earn additional service credit, it would only be at a small are not always administered with the needed frequency, the
percentage per year, which would not make up for the loss of availability of provisional certificates and waivers year after year
each year of benefits. signals that even the state does not put much value on its licens-
To try to balance this incentive to retire, some states have cre- ing standards or what they represent. States accordingly need to
ated DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) programs. DROP ensure that all persons given full charge of children’s learning are
programs allow participants to place their monthly pension ben- required to pass the relevant licensing tests in their first year of
efits in a private investment account while still teaching and teaching, ideally before they enter the classroom. Licensing tests
earning a salary, thus retaining those benefits. These teachers are, are an important minimum benchmark in the profession, and
in effect, earning their pension and salary at the same time, and states that allow teachers to postpone passing these tests are
often at a relatively young age. abandoning one of the basic responsibilities of licensure.
A DROP program is a band-aid on the problem; it does not fix
what is structurally wrong--retirement at an early age without
area 5: goal B
reduction of benefits. For example, the hypothetical teacher
above decides to forgo retiring at age 47 in order to wait and Unsatisfactory Evaluations
qualify for her state’s DROP program at age 55. She now has 33 rationale
years of service and has reached a pension equal to 66 percent of
Negative evaluations should have meaningful
her salary. She remains in DROP for the maximum allowable five
consequences.
years. During that time, her five years of lost pension benefits
Teacher evaluations are too often treated as mere formalities,
plus her five years of mandatory employee pension contribution
rather than as important tools for rewarding good teachers, help-
have been deposited in a private investment account. Upon retir-
ing average teachers to improve and holding weak teachers ac-
ing at age 60, she would receive the total of that private account
countable for poor performance. State policy should reflect the
plus a lifetime pension benefit annually of 66 percent of her final
importance of evaluations so that teachers and principals alike
salary. With the lump-sum payment of her DROP account and
take their consequences seriously. Accordingly, states should ar-
monthly pension benefit, she will receive 100 percent of her final
ticulate the consequences of negative evaluations. First, teachers
average salary for at least 10 years, and, depending on the state,
that receive a negative evaluation should be placed on improve-
she may also receive Social Security benefits. This generous guar-
ment plans. These plans should focus on performance areas that
anteed payout would be hard to find in any other profession.
directly connect to student learning and should list noted defi-
DROP programs do create an incentive for some teachers to re-
ciencies, define specific action steps necessary to address these
main past their eligible retirement, but at a high cost. DROP pro-
deficiencies and describe how progress will be measured. While
grams mean that districts still must find the funds to pay pen-
teachers that receive negative evaluations should receive sup-
sion benefits to teachers at a relatively young age when those
port and additional training, opportunities to improve should
dollars could be more effectively spent.
not be unlimited. States should articulate policies wherein two
negative evaluations within five years are sufficient justification
for dismissal.
area 5: goal a
Licensure Loopholes employment status should not determine the conse-
rationale quences of a negative evaluation.
Teachers who have not passed licensing tests may Differentiating consequences of a negative evaluation based on
place students at risk. whether a teacher has probationary or nonprobationary status
puts the interests of adults before those of students. Ideally,
While states may need a regulatory basis for filling classroom
weaknesses and deficiencies would be identified and corrected
positions with a few people who do not hold full teaching cre-
during the probationary period: if the deficiencies were found
dentials, many of the regulations permitting this put the instruc-
to be insurmountable, the teacher would not be awarded per-
tional needs of children at risk, often year after year. For example,
manent status. However, in the absence of meaningful tenure
schools can make liberal use of provisional certificates or waiv-
processes based on teacher effectiveness, limiting significant
ers provided by the state if they fill classroom positions with
consequences to the probationary period is insufficient. Any
instructors who have completed a teacher preparation program
teacher who receives a negative evaluation, regardless of em-
but have not passed their state licensing tests. These allowances
ployment status, should be placed on an improvement plan, and
are permitted for up to three years in some states. The unfor-
any teacher who receives multiple negative evaluations, regard-
tunate consequence is that students’ needs are neglected in an
less of employment status, should be eligible for dismissal.
effort to extend personal consideration to adults who cannot
meet minimal state standards.
nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009 : 149
Nevada
aPPeNdiX
area 5: goal c
Dismissal for Poor Performance
rationale
States need to be explicit that teacher ineffectiveness
is grounds for dismissal.
Most states have laws on their books that address teacher dis-
missal; however, these laws are much more likely to consider
criminal and moral violations than performance. When perfor-
mance is included, it is usually in a euphemistic term such as
“incompetency,” “inefficiency” or “incapacity.” These terms are
ambiguous at best and may be interpreted as concerning der-
eliction of duty rather than ineffectiveness. Without laws that
clearly state that teacher ineffectiveness is grounds for dismissal,
districts may feel they lack the legal basis for terminating consis-
tently poor performers.
due process must be efficient and expedited.
Teachers who are dismissed for any grounds, including ineffec-
tiveness, are entitled to due process. However, process rights
that allow for multiple levels of appeal are not fair to teach-
ers, districts and especially students. All parties have a right to
have disputes settled quickly. Cases that drag on for years drain
resources from school districts and create a disincentive for dis-
tricts to attempt to terminate poor performers. Teachers are not
well served by such processes either, as they are entitled to final
resolution quickly.
decisions about teachers should be made by those
with educational expertise.
Multiple levels of appeal almost invariably involve courts or arbi-
trators who lack educational expertise. It is not in students’ best
interest to have the evidence of teachers’ effectiveness evalu-
ated by those who are not educators. Teachers’ opportunity to
appeal should occur at the district level and involve only those
with educational expertise. This can be done in a manner that is
fair to all parties by including retired teachers or other knowl-
edgeable individuals who are not current district employees.
150 : nctq State teacher Policy yearbook 2009
Nevada
Board of directors
Stacey Boyd, Chair Clara M. Lovett
Chief Executive Officer, The Savvy Source for Parents President Emerita, Northern Arizona University
Chester E. Finn, Jr. Barbara O’Brien
President, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute Lieutenant Governor, State of Colorado
Ira Fishman Carol G. Peck
Managing Director, NFL Players Association President and Chief Executive Officer,
Marti Watson Garlett Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona
Vice President, Academic Programs and Danielle Wilcox
Professional Licensure, Laureate Education, Inc. Consultant
Henry L. Johnson John Winn
Senior Advisor, B&D Consulting Chief Program Officer,
Jason Kamras National Math and Science Initiative
Director of Human Capital Strategy for Teachers, Kate Walsh
District of Columbia Public Schools President, National Council on Teacher Quality
2005 National Teacher of the Year
Donald N. Langenberg
Chancellor Emeritus, University System of Maryland
Advisory Board
• Steven J. Adamowski, Hartford Public Schools • Sir Michael Barber, McKinsey and Company • Roy E. Barnes, former Governor,
State of Georgia • Lawrence S. Braden, Saint Paul’s School, New Hampshire • Cynthia G. Brown, Center for American Progress
• Andrew Chen, EduTron • Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia Commonwealth University • Paula S. Dominguez, Rhode Island House
of Representatives • Cheryl Ellis, Sugar Creek Charter School • Michael Feinberg, The KIPP Foundation • Eleanor S. Gaines,
Grayhawk Elementary School, Arizona • Michael Goldstein, The Match School, Massachusetts • Eric A. Hanushek,
The Hoover Institution • Joseph Hawkins, Westat • Frederick M. Hess, American Enterprise Institute • Paul T. Hill, Center
on Reinventing Public Education • E.D. Hirsch, Core Knowledge Foundation • Michael Johnston, Colorado State Senate
• Frank Keating, former Governor, State of Oklahoma • Martin J. Koldyke, Academy for Urban School Leadership
• Wendy Kopp, Teach For America • Amy Jo Leonard, Turtle Mountain Elementary School, North Dakota • Deborah M. McGriff,
NewSchools Venture Fund • Ellen Moir, New Teacher Center • Robert N. Pasternack, Maximus Inc. • Michael Podgursky,
University of Missouri-Columbia • Michelle Rhee, District of Columbia Public Schools • Stefanie Sanford, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation • Laura Schwedes, KIPP: STAR College Prep Charter School • Daniel Willingham, University of Virginia
National Council on Teacher Quality
1420 New York Avenue, NW • Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202-393-0020 Fax: 202-393-0095 Web: www.nctq.org
NCTQ is available to work with individual states to improve teacher policies.
For more information, please contact:
Sandi Jacobs
Vice President
sjacobs@nctq.org
202-393-0020